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: 69564
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
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Fibr Dog, *Religious History and Issues*, *Science and technology* (#0)
VERY cool!
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Good find.
"Whatever things, then, the Holy Scripture declare, at these let us look; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn..." Hippolytus
Indeed, that is very cool. It makes sense that it is from the Gospel of Mark, since according to tradition he traveled to Egypt and evangelized there.
Maybe this will led to a new Council of Nicea?
LOL doubtful. The NT books were complete long before Nicea. Only Dan Brown and his publishers believe Nicea was about the canon. What this fragment will do is confirm one of the many families of manuscripts we already have.
"Whatever things, then, the Holy Scripture declare, at these let us look; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn..." Hippolytus
But what happens if the new finds show that the texts of Mark in fact did change over time prior to the determinations made by Nicea? IMO that is a toal game changer.....not to mention very solid support for my position about the possible lack of fidelity of Scripture as we know it today. OTOH if documents written less than 40 years after the death of Christ, especially by those that had firsthand contact with Him, indicate fidelity of versions relied upon hundreds of years later then I most certainly will have to reconsider my position.
Or rather, resemble a very small portion of some of the existing manuscripts. Doesn't sound like there's much text here.
BTW I do not believe that the PTB will allow this to happen. There is too much power and money on the line. At best we will likely get a Shroud of Turin type of situation ot yes it is, no it ain't.....if anything at all.
"You left enough".
OTOH if documents written less than 40 years after the death of Christ, especially by those that had firsthand contact with Him, indicate fidelity of versions relied upon hundreds of years later then I most certainly will have to reconsider my position. It won't be clear-cut. It'll be a small fragment. There will be some differences between it and other manuscripts and fragments - every manuscript is different from every other one. Those who put their trust in absolutely faithful transmission of everything will hail the similarities as proof that we have the pure text. Those who doubt the validily of everything will say that the differences proves that Scripture is a crock. And then there'll be every variance of opinion in between. Many will wait to hear what their official religious leaders officially say, and then believe that.
No. The Church preceded the New Testament, as testified by Scripture itself. Most of Paul's Epistles are written to already existing Churches. "to the Church that is in Corinth", Galatians, Ephesians, etc. Most of those Churches have never ceased to exist -- the ones above are parts of the Greek Orthodox Church, for example. It was the Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, which decided the Canon of Scripture. And in the same way the Church cast out heretics in the Ecumenical Councils.
No. Ah, I love an open minded person. Don't worry, the religious establishment has your back.
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.
LOL. I love it when the first thing someone who is not a traditional Christian says is that I'm close-minded. That way you don't even have to pay attention to the premise that I posted. The Church determined the Canon of Scripture, not the other way around. That's just historical fact.
Yes, I would bet on that.
Do you know something that God doesn't, i.e. that I am not a traditional Christian?
About 100-150 years before Nicea we had early church fathers who quoted and commented on the NT we have today. Some theologians in the 19th century claimed if we took all the writings of the early theologians we could transcribe the same NT today. So the actual 27 books of the NT were not hotly contested (unless you count the east with Revelation); but spurious books and writings with unconfirmed apostolic origins. 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. 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.
"Whatever things, then, the Holy Scripture declare, at these let us look; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn..." Hippolytus
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. We do not disagree with each other greatly concerning Scripture or the 7 Ecumenical Councils. Protestant Churches, of course, did not exist until the time of Luther. Our many Protestant posters can argue their position if they choose to do so. But as an example of an amusing episode I had years ago, I visited a Protestant Church that had a pamphlet about the Book of Revelation. The pastor there had visited the historic locations where the Churches addressed in the seven letters to the Churches in that book historically existed. Except in the case where the city no longer existed (Laodecia) the pastor had the same hilarious remark about each site. He wrote that all he could find was a Greek Orthodox Church there, the original Church had vanished! Since he couldn't find someone in an auditorium in an American 3-piece suit waving an English Bible around, he didn't see the forest for the trees.
If you are a traditional Christian, then why would you argue to replace an Ecumenical Council? It's funny, literally this very day the Orthodox Church commemorates Sts. Athanasius and Cyril, who expressed the Orthodox doctrine in two of the Ecumenical Councils. Are you arguing that Athanasius should be cast out if a few words on some mummy wrappings do not support his defense of the Divinity of Christ? You do understand, don't you, that the Church rejected various "Gnostic Gospels" that taught things contrary to what they had received from the Apostles?
Skeptics, heretics and atheists will always make hay out of finds like this. Just look at the article. The researchers are not trying to confirm the veracity of the inerrancy of scriptures but trying to find discrepancies. They are looking for stupid kooky CT Dan Brown stuff like Jesus had a wife and kids and Mary Magdalene was calling the shots. Their liberalism has become strong delusion and blinds any professional ethics remaining.
"Whatever things, then, the Holy Scripture declare, at these let us look; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn..." Hippolytus
Nice find.
You want to put some money on it?
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
ping #8. Do you want to put money on that?
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.
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
Thanks! The pastor there has become a friend, and I still enjoy kidding him about it. ;)
Indeed so, even He who is one is essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit.
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.
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.
As is often the case, well said Vicomte.
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.
Easy. In which language the New Testament was written? Latin? German/English/Swedish? Greek? Armenian?
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. 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.
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. ;)
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.
In which language did God speak to Adam and Adam to God?
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.
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.
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.
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. :)
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.
In the same vein. The King James is easy to understand even though it is in old English.
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?
I agree with that.
I couldn't resist.
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.
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.
Hear! Hear! Best comment of the New Year! MHO!
Don't know about that but it is what I earnestly believe.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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. “Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org/Bible
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: "Whatever things, then, the Holy Scripture declare, at these let us look; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn..." Hippolytus
"The Scriptures are not a library of disjointed, independent, inspired books. From: Jesus, A Theography
“Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org/Bible
Knuckle dragger here.
“Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org/Bible
Amen.
"Whatever things, then, the Holy Scripture declare, at these let us look; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn..." Hippolytus
In which language did God speak to Adam and Adam to God? The Book of Genesis is not a part of New Testament.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
?? 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.”
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.
Except for baptism, at least...
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
Boom.
"Whatever things, then, the Holy Scripture declare, at these let us look; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn..." Hippolytus
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.
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.
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.
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
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".
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
The question is when does faith first come not what is required for salavation. Yes, some don't listen.
{Sigh}
No, you need another of your church to baptize you.
I am claiming that those that only speak modern English cannot perfectly communicate with those that only speak Shakespeare's English and visce versa. The may understand each other on 99% of things but not all things and not to a level of 100% certainty.
What would they say about Caholics, the mryiad of individual Protest-ant sects, the various Orthodx sects?
"The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed." The the Greek Orthodox church is not Christian because they do not believe in the Eucharist as being the boby and blood of Christ?
Romans 10 New King James Version (NKJV) 14 How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace, Who bring glad tidings of good things!” 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our report?” 17 So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. 18 But I say, have they not heard? Yes indeed: “Their sound has gone out to all the earth, And their words to the ends of the world.” "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
Really Jasper? I gave you the answers to the posed questions straight from the Light of the World Jesus Christ. Be the woman at the well! (disclaimer; I not advocating you becoming a woman, but to take the example of her faith). John chapter 4 for you tonight Jasper. We even covered that chapter at Fordham. Are you saying Forham had a better theological program than Manhattan?
"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
Just saying...If you were a eunuch in a chariot and asked me for directions to Jesus Christ I would oblige. I would also baptize you if believed in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. "Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words." Gregory of Nyssa
Languages changes, does it mean that Mark Twain books stopped to be English? How many dialects are there in the modern Greek language? How many in the ancient greek language? Do dialects have there own idioms? Nuances to words? This chart shows samples of the changes in English. #1 is Old English or Anglo-Saxon (circa 450-1066 CE). #2 is Middle English (circa 1066-1450 AD). #3 is Modern English from about the time of Shakespeare. #4 is another sample of Modern English, but it is more recent than #3. 1 would be a Greek to those that only spoke 4 as Greek itself.
Did you take a Shakespearean sonnets course at Manhattan? Or even an Middle English Lit course trying to decipher the Canterbury Tales in the original? Once you do it is easy to see the progression of the language. A progression which the KJV helped stablized and codify to some degree. I mean, can anyone go to the Canterbury Tales and figure this out?! We were graded on this! WHAN that Aprille with his shoures soote 1 The droghte 2 of Marche hath perced to the roote, And bathed every veyne in swich 3 licour, Of which vertu engendred is the flour; Whan Zephirus eek with his swete breeth5 Inspired hath in every holt 4 and heeth The tendre croppes, 5 and the yonge sonne Hath in the Ram his halfe cours y-ronne, 6 And smale fowles maken melodye, That slepen al the night with open ye,10 (So priketh hem nature in hir corages: 7
"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
I think what he is saying is that the Orthodox see this as a mystery and don't ascribe to a doctrine of transubstantiation.
"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
No. But no-one is being asked to base their salvation on it. And stop aiding TC, please.
How many dialects are there in Modern Greek? How many in ANcient Greek?
Maybe it is simpler than that. If you belong to the Good Shepherd, obey His smallest request. It is easy for anyone to say they believe. But any act to actually confirm it is much rarer. And that includes seeking baptism. Think of the tens of millions who claim to be Christian but never give a thought to religion otherwise. How can they claim to be Christian in any sense if they claim to believe but refuse baptism? "Believe and be baptized" is simple enough for any child to grasp. I think there may be other factors involved that we cannot know in this life. But to believe and then to obey seems to clinch the deal, so to speak.
You mean that the full breadth and scope of the Word of God is only for the well educated and those of ample intellectual prowess? God does not mean to have all of His words, and critical nuances, to be perfectly understood by all men but just a priviledged few? Wow, I missed that memo. I hope that you understand that you just made my point far better than I have been able to do. By your own admission these "lesser" versions of Scripture are man made for mass consumtption by the less educated and/or those only capable of diminished understanding. They may have been good, honest men but they are still men, flawed and fallible. But perhaps this is by God's design? As Vicomte13 points out there is a hieracrchy in Heaven. Some live in the slums of Heaven, others have beach front property. Though God is ever present there He is more present to some than to others. So perhaps God only gives the individual man what that man is capable of understanding, you know something like the Classic comic books or Cliff Notes - just the minimum to get past the Pearly Gates?
Do the Greek Orthodox eat and drink of Christ's flesh and blood as A Pole says Christ commands or don't they?
What would they say about Caholics, the mryiad of individual Protest-ant sects, the various Orthodx sects? Throw out the term traditional Christians. the best term is historic Christians. We have a historical record and an archeological record of how Christians worshipped going back in time. It is clear that Mediterranean Christians are closer to the early Christians in both language and in how they worship and in what they believe. You think a Christian from 200AD (just a random date) would find anything comprehensible about what Protestants do in Church beyond the language barrier? That Arameans who are still left in the Holy Land somehow stopped worshipping Christ as the first Christians from their community did (and theirs was amongst the first Christians)?
Do the Greek Orthodox eat and drink of Christ's flesh and blood as A Pole says Christ commands or don't they? http://blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxyandheterodoxy/2013/08/14/the- doctrine-of-transubstantiation-in-the-orthodox-church/ In this confession of faith enjoying wide acceptance throughout the seventeenth century Orthodox Church, Patriarch Dositheus teaches that Christ is “truly and really” present in the Eucharistic elements. He does not mention here the timing of the change, but simply that the bread and wine are “transubstantiated” (again, ¼µÄ¿ÅïÉùÂ) into the “true Body” and “true Blood” of the Lord. 340. How are we to understand the word transubstantiation? In the exposition of the faith by the Eastern Patriarchs, it is said that the word transubstantiation is not to be taken to define the manner in which the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of the Lord; for this none can understand but God; but only thus much is signified, that the bread truly, really, and substantially becomes the very true Body of the Lord, and the wine the very Blood of the Lord. In like manner John Damascene, treating of the Holy and Immaculate Mysteries of the Lord, writes thus: “It is truly that Body, united with Godhead, which had its origin from the Holy Virgin; not as though that Body which ascended came down from heaven, but because the bread and wine themselves are changed into the Body and Blood of God. But if thou seekest after the manner how this is, let it suffice thee to be told that it is by the Holy Ghost; in like manner as, by the same Holy Ghost, the Lord formed flesh to himself, and in himself, from the Mother of God; nor know I aught more than this, that the Word of God is true, powerful, and almighty, but its manner of operation unsearchable.” (J. Damasc. Theol. lib. iv. cap. 13, § 7.) Longer Catechism of the Orthodox, Catholic, Eastern Church by St. Philaret (Drozdov) of Moscow (1830) In St. Philaret’s catechism, we are given the first distinction between the Eastern and Western description of transubstantiation of which I’m aware. Writing in the nineteenth century, Philaret says that transubstantiation is not a reference to the change itself—since none can possibly understand exactly how/when this takes place—but that it is merely a reference to our Lord being “truly, really, and substantially” present in the Eucharist. In other words, it is not a reference to metaphysical or nominalist philosophy (as with Aristotle, for example), but is speaking to the reality of the change, albeit as beyond our comprehension. In a sense, it is impossible to draw a true comparison between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox viewpoints on this issue, since only one communion has dogmatically ruled on the question. In their dialogues and disputes with the Protestant reformers, the Latin Christians dogmatically ruled a number of issues that had previously been left to relative mystery—or were not as “officially” defined as at the Council of Trent and following. In the rare cases where the Orthodox Church has responded to the arguments of the Reformers, the word transubstantiate is used to clarify the Orthodox position, in contradistinction from the positions of both Luther and Calvin (among others). However, this has never risen to the level of dogma, nor has it been ecumenically mandated. In other words, the Orthodox clergy were (wisely) using the words of their own day to differentiate themselves from the Protestants, while not necessarily painting themselves into a dogmatic corner. And it should be noted too that Scholasticism itself is not wholly foreign to Orthodoxy, nor is it exclusive of the West. In the end, while I appreciate the aim of Dr. Dunn’s post, I think on this particular point he has overstated his case. As Orthodox Christians, we must be careful to balance and nuance our claims, especially with regards to the Latins or “the West.” The last thing we want to do is oversimplify matters to the extent of seeming deceptive or—perhaps worse—misinformed. After all, this is typically what gets thrown our way from those unfamiliar with Orthodoxy (beyond literature), often justly putting us on the “defensive” (an important distinction from “triumphalism”) in response to such misrepresentations. That being said, I’m open to feedback if anyone (Roman or Orthodox) thinks I’ve misrepresented one side or the other in this article.
When I was last in Armenia in 1999 the Armenian church was still scarificing animals as part of certain church rituals. I suspect that that hasn't changed since then.
The Greek used is very well documented. I don't get why t his is an argument?
When I was last in Armenia in 1999 the Armenian church was still scarificing animals as part of certain church rituals. I suspect that that hasn't changed since then. What do Armenians have to do with Arameans? I don't think you will live that down after this. Maybe you should not pretend you have any scholarship in theology after that statement?
Do the Greek Orthodox eat and drink of Christ's flesh and blood as A Pole says Christ commands or don't they? Is it an integral, if not crucial, part of their Mass?
I gave you a present day example of a present day sect which is still left in the Holy Land that hasn't stopped worshipping Christ as the first Christians from their community did. What in the world is there to live down? Agreeing with you?
You might ask if the Catholic hierarchy only ever intended to use its sacred art to aid the salvation of the sighted and were therefore indifferent to the eternal fate of the blind. Certainly, that was not their intent and they did provide for the inspiration of the blind with some pretty excellent religious music. Over the centuries the blind, who were generally neglected by their societies in daily life, probably appreciated the sacred music more than any of the sighted appreciated the sacred art. You also fail to account for the work of the Spirit. Most sola scriptura types would say that scripture does not win any converts through words alone. Certainly, it is not equally effective in converting all persons. Therefore, only the Spirit brings real and lasting conviction to the reading. And the Spirit is mysterious, favoring neither rich nor poor, educated or ignorant, etc. This fundamental notion has always been a part of Christianity's huge appeal, especially in the ancient world where the idea that a slave had just as much an eternal soul and destiny as the emperor was nothing short of revolutionary.
Since SOSO is not Greek and thus mentally limited by Western mindsets - the answer is yes even though the Orthodox don't have 'masses' and consider the Eucharist a holy mystery. It kind of reminds me of the Simpsons when Apu was going for a citizenship test and was asked what caused the Civil War and Apu launched into a long complicated answer and the test giver said "just say slavery". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8VCbvMoCV8
I gave you a present day example of a present day sect which is still left in the Holy Land that hasn't stopped worshipping Christ as the first Christians from their community did. What in the world is there to live down? Agreeing with you? No, you thought Armenians were Arameans. I have no idea if you saw Armenians offer sacrifices of animals. You could have seen Kurds who live in depopulated Armenian lands for all I know.
So are you saying that the average man, the universal man is incapable of seeing the Light? "Over the centuries the blind, who were generally neglected by their societies in daily life, probably appreciated the sacred music more than any of the sighted appreciated the sacred art." As I said over and over again, God communicates to us in many ways. "You also fail to account for the work of the Spirit." It is very apparent that you fail to understand my posts. If anything I have taken the position that the Holy Ghost rules. "Therefore, only the Spirit brings real and lasting conviction to the reading. "
LMAO. Why couldn't you just have said no form the git-go? Keep the flames comoig, I appreciate the laughs.
Oh, up yours, you moron. For all you know is crap.
So you have a copy of the autographs?
“Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org
Listen carefully, Romans 10:17-18 (AMP) 17 So faith comes by hearing [what is told], and what is heard comes by the preaching [of the message that came from the lips] of Christ (the Messiah Himself). 18 But I ask, Have they not heard? Indeed they have; [for the Scripture says] Their voice [that of nature bearing God's message] has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the far bounds of the world. [Ps 19:4.]
“Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org
I have attended Greek Orthodox masses in the past, thank you. A simple yes or no to my question would be nice.
A Pole wrote: This teaching that Christ Himself spoke: "The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed." SOSO- The Greek Orthodox church is not Christian because they do not believe in the Eucharist as being the body and blood of Christ? Are you even bothering to read what people write before you respond to them? A Pole clearly stated that the Orthodox believe that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ, and you respond as though he had said the opposite. Are you just trying to be contrarian here?
Do the attendees at the mass actualyl eat the bread (host) and drink the wine or not?
If you had attended a Greek Orthodox Divine Liturgy you would know the answer to that.
And even more than that. Our Lord, God, and Saviour Jesus Christ humbled Himself to receive baptism from the hands of John the Baptist. He did not do that because of anything that John could bestow upon Him, He showed us through His own example that the way is not a solitary journey, but as a member of a community.
Vicomte wins the internetz for today. In a few concise sentences you expressed clearly why seeking to follow a spiritual life apart from the guidance of the Church is inherently dangerous.
What this thread needs are more mummy masks. I did like seeing the actual mask from which this papyrus fragment of Mark's Gospel was retrieved. I had read of it before but hadn't seen it.
If you had attended a Greek Orthodox Divine Liturgy you would know the answer to that. Why won't you answer a most simply question? Are you deliberately being deceitful?
LMAO. Why couldn't you just have said no form the git-go? Keep the flames comoig, I appreciate the laughs. I did not say no. What you asked does not compute to an Orthodox mind per the link I gave you.
Do the rank and file parishiners at the Greek Orthodox eat the flesh (host, bread) and drink the blood (wine) of Christ at the mass? A simple question that even a simple minded person can answer yes or no. Why all the obfuscation?
There are two answers. The first is a dodge: go back to John the Baptist, to whom "all Jerusalem came to be baptized". So, the thief WAS baptized, as he was in Jerusalem, and "all Jerusalem" was baptized. Of course this is one of many cases in Scripture were "all" very probably doesn't really mean "all", (Caiphas and Annas lived in Jerusalem, did THEY go out to be baptized by John? How about Pontius Pilate and his wife, who were also at Jerusalem.) And of course, if "all" there doesn't mean ALL, at all - it can't - then "all" anywhere else may well not really mean ALL either. The second answer is to remember that Jesus said men would be judged by their deeds. The thief (who isn't described as a "thief" in the text, actually), was already paying, hard, for his sins. (Dying on a cross is pretty hideous payment for sin.) He did a good deed to Christ, and Christ repaid him with Paradise. Men really want to bind God with laws and rules, to say whom Christ can save and under what conditions. Men make plans and rules and God laughs.
You said that you've attended Greek Orthodox Divine Liturgies. Were you being deceitful? Unless you are physically blind, you would know the answer to your question without anyone needing to remind you. The Eucharist is the focus of it. The answer to your question is not subtle or needing nuance. And if you really do not recall, I posted the video above. As Philip said to Nathaniel, "Come and see."
Your video did not show anyone of the parishioner actual eating or drinking the forms of the eucharist. Would the receiving the eucharistic forms by a Catholic, or a person of any of the Protest-ant sects that ascribe to the eucharist, at a Greek Orthodox mass have the same meaning and consequence as receiving the eucharistic forms in his own church mass and vice versa?
Exactly. ""And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live. But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?""
Damascene speaks wisely. HOW God does it he hasn't told us, so we can't know. THAT he does it is undeniable by anybody, for God has on occasion done it completely, visibly and physically, and at least one instance of that has been preserved, incorrupt, since the 600s: the Lanciano Eucharistic Miracle is examinable, and has been examined: it is incorrupt heart tissue of the same rare AB blood type as is on the Shroud of Turin and Oviedo Cloth. Transubstantiation is literally real, and God demonstrated it FULLY with the Lanciano Miracle, and preserved it so that every Thomas in the world can look and see, if he must. So, why doesn't God do that all the time? Perhaps because it's gross. It's one thing to eat the body and blood of Christ in the species of bread and wine, and to believe. It is quite another thing to actually have to eat a piece of heart tissue and drink human blood. Thanks to Lanciano, God made it physically certain to anybody who really NEEDS to proof that yes, we really truly ARE eating the literal flesh (in fact, the SACRED HEART) and the literal blood of Jesus Christ when we take communion...but God is kind enough to allow us to do so in a way that is not so unpalatable that we would wretch up communion. God gives us something normal and palatable, fruit of the field and of the vine, to be the host. We know it, we don't need to see it. If we really HAVE to see it in order to believe it, God did that for us too, and preserved it for all these 1450 years at Lanciano, so that we in our critical and forensic age can look, touch, prod, examine, test, and see that yep, it's real. I myself find that IMMENSELY helpful, on God's part, to have done that for me. Of course, it also traps me in Catholicism/Orthodoxy, because the people who really believe that the bread and wine literally transform are proven right by the concrete physical evidence God left to prove it. Now, since transubstantiation is not directly in the Scripture, this is a case of a lasting physical revelation from God, through the clergy of the Church, that adds information to Christianity that is not contained in Scripture. The Marian apparitions do the same regarding Mary. The fact that God keeps erupting into the world and imparting additional revelation is something that cannot be contained in a belief system that forbids God to reveal anything else after the last sentence of Revelation, until the end of the world. Alas, God wrote no such rule IN Scripture, and hasn't behaved according to the script that God wrote for him. Man makes rules and God laughs.
????
"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
It is simple. Good post.
"Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words." Gregory of Nyssa
I cannot speak for the Protestants - too varied. From the Catholic perspective, eucharist at Orthodox liturgies is truly the eucharist: the body and blood of Christ is present, and the sacrament is true and licit. If a Catholic were to take the eucharist at an Orthodox liturgy, from the perspective of Catholic belief that is eucharist, and the same thing as taking eucharist at a Catholic Mass. However, Catholics should not normally do so for a very good reason: Catholics should be attending Mass in Churches that are in proper communion with Rome, because there are other issues at stake than the eucharist. Rome and the Eastern and Oriental Patriarchs have been working for years and years to gently discover means of reconciling the wounds of the past. It is not an easy matter, and it is an especially fraught one for the Orthodox laity. For a Catholic to stride up to the altar and take communion in an Orthodox church is sacramentally licit - from a CATHOLIC perspective: that is the eucharist, but it will wound the other people present by inflaming passions, by transgressing boundaries (it may very well not be licit in the ORTHODOX perspective, and it's THEIR Church, for Heaven's sake) - it will throw stumbling blocks in front of good people of good will, and for what? To make a point? But this "point" is not a point that ANY Patriarch, in Rome or in any of the other Sees, thinks should be made at this time. There are few places on earth where it is impossible for a Catholic to take the eucharist from a Catholic priest, or from a lay eucharistic minister who has been charged with carrying the consecrated host in a pyxis. Formal Canon Law requires that a Catholic take communion once per year at a minimum. Of course people may CRAVE the eucharist, and that is well, but their personal desires must not override the discipline. The long and bitter history of Catholic and Orthodox division has left us with a mess to clean up and a lot of wounds to heal, and that can only be done with mutual respect and care. Going up to take legitimate sacraments at an Orthodox Liturgy, as a Catholic, is pretending to a unity that isn't there yet, and is likely to be a fresh wound that makes that union harder to get to. So it's wrong to do it for very good reasons that have nothing to do with the legitimacy of the sacrament. The Eucharist is COMMUNION, with God, but also with the other communicants present. You can eat the body and blood of Christ and have communion with him, but if you're offending everybody else in the room by doing it, you're not doing it in the proper spirit. Of course, if you're bleeding out in a car accident or on a battlefield and you're facing death, THEN you take the eucharist from any Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox or Catholic priest who is there and who offers it - viaticum to the dying is not the moment that anybody needs to be worrying about politics, and nobody is going to be giving offense to anybody by doing it. From the Catholic perspective, Orthodox communion is the same sacrament as in the Catholic Church. I can't speak for the Orthodox, though I suspect it is similar. I think that the absence of Orthodox priests resulted in a lot of Orthodox soldiers receiving viaticum from Catholic priests during the World Wars, and I don't think there is a patriarch on the planet today, or then, who denied the sacramental nature of those extraordinary circumstance given in those circumstances. More than that, I dare not say.
Thanks for the research. Did not know the Orthodox were Johnny come lately to the actual doctrine of transubstantiation. 17th century. Even with all the patristic writings where it could go either way. That's quite a leap for an ancient Church.
"Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words." Gregory of Nyssa
Thank you. This is my understanding as well. I too cannot speak for the Greek Orthodox position on this. I know what is required of a Catholic to receive communion at mass (basicly to be free of mortal sin). I do not know if that is the same as what is required of a Greek Orthodox (but am curious). Where am I going with this, you may ask. As I see it the things that divide the Christian sects fall into two catagories: the consequential and the consequential. The consequential arise from different interpretations of the fundamental message in Scripture. For the most part the inconsequential have to do with the particulars of rituals. Arguing about those is ridiculous and a waste of time. There does not appear to be consequential differences between the Greek Orthodox and the Catholic chuches with respect fo the Eucharist. However there are such difference with some Protest-ant sects. This begs the question of which is the correct interpretation of Scripture. In God's mind, all things equal, could adhering to either position be sufficicent to allow the adherents of either passage through the Pearly Gates? One might get the beach front property the other a cold water flat.
Well there you have it. What I was alluding to. Meaning the Orthodox don't have a mass where a priest commands Christ from seated at the Right Hand of The Father and be re-sacrificed, on command from a mortal human, and then take the form of a wafer and cup of wine? I give a big Hooah for the Orthodox calling it a mystery.
"Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words." Gregory of Nyssa
It certainly took long enough to establish it. "I give a big Hooah for the Orthodox calling it a mystery." You mean all of it is not a mystery?
If that is true, then it follows that after you eat some of His flesh and drink His blood, then He is slightly less fully man.
“Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org
What? Jesus is not a renewable resource? Wow, I missed that memo as well.
"Baptism" is the English word for "baptismos", which is the Greek word for "mikvah". Mikvah is the Jewish practice of washing something in water to make it "clean" for ritual/spiritual purposes. In synagogues, there are mikvah baths, into which Jews who need to be purified go. Women, for example, according to the Torah must be purified of their uncleanness once their menstrual flow ceases. To complete their purification, they must be baptized, which is to say, they must take a mikvah: go into the water and come out. This removes their spiritual impurity. Similarly, hands must be washed before meals, and utensils, etc. In simplest terms, a mikvah is a washing, a spiritual washing. The interesting innovation of Christianity is that it was required only once, for once one were washed, one were cleansed of sin that existed before that, and then one faced God anew. So, that's what baptism is: it's a spiritual washing. Why only once? Why it's necessary? Why anything...even HOW it is to be done - Scripture doesn't say. Tradition has supplied an answer. Well, actually tradition has described a lot of different answers, and because it's believed to be NECESSARY, this becomes one of the solid points of combat (to wit: You MUST do it our way, or you have not completed a requirement, and therefore you shall BURN!) To them. To me, it's a mikvah. No doubt there's some meaning to it, and God knows what that is, and he hasn't revealed it very clearly in Scripture. Lots of Churches have told me it's clear. I read the texts they read, and I don't see what they say in there. So I leave it with a shoulder shrug. I was baptized as a baby. So, I've been baptized. Block checked. What matters is what Jesus said. He said a handful of lines about baptism. He said pages and pages about deeds. I listen to Jesus. He emphasized deeds, and barely mentioned baptism. Therefore, that is precisely the relative importance of these two things. Because Jesus said so, and he's God, and all of the men yammering about these things share one thing in common: they're not.
It does? I don't see how that follows at all, frankly. God made human flesh out of powder. God made the world out of nothing. God makes as much flesh and blood as he needs to make, whenever he pleases. And it pleases him to do it in the eucharist, because he said that it's his flesh and blood, and demonstrated at Lanciano circa 600 AD (and elsewhere) that he meant it literally by leaving us the heart tissue and blood to prove it. For me, there's no way to get around transubstantiation because the Lanciano miracle is physical proof that its true, and all that can be arrayed against it is words of opinion, and such words are wind. Wind versus actual blood and tissue. For me it's a slam dunk, unless the scientists are lying. They could be. The forensics of the Lanciano miracle are not nearly as well-attested as the Shroud of Turin studies.
scripture?
“Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org
Your slam dunks fall a little short.
“Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org
I know that I am going to regret this but where? Is there still a human nature of Christ?
12 I turned around to see the voice that was speaking to me. And when I turned I saw seven golden lampstands, 13 and among the lampstands was someone “like a son of man,”a dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest. 14 His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. 15 His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters. 16 In his right hand he held seven stars, and out of his mouth came a sharp double-edged sword. His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance. 17 When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. 18 I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades. The Holy Bible: New International Version (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), Re 1:12–18.
“Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org
I'll be lucky to be sweeping the streets. A throne and a crown are for the saints. I'd like to be a saint...but not enough to actually be one. Therefore, I am a very forgiving man. I don't hold grudges. I see the other side. I'm kind and patient, and when I'm impatient, I'm kinder still in the aftermath to undo my impatience. Jesus said that to be forgiven, you have to forgive, and to the extent that you forgive, you will be forgiven. I take him literally at his word, and I am literally RELYING on that very heavily for the disposition of my final judgment. It would be nice to avoid Gehenna before the resurrection and judgment too, which makes me ever more forgiving. I do unto others as I hope God will do unto me. Because there is no way that I am going to go for the rest of my life without succumbing to certain sins. I know it. I don't like it, but I'm honest and a realist. I have talked to God, seen the Dove, seen a gate of City, been in the black abyss, felt the heat of Gehenna beneath my feet, seen a demon, been embraced by Christ and had a broken neck healed miraculously. God is, I know him, and he knows me. Satan is too, I know him too. So, these things are all real. And standing on this great field of action is me, a spirit enmeshed in flesh. I have my good qualities (the Calivinsts are wrong about total depravity), and I have my bad qualities that are mine and not simply demonic parasites. And then I've got those too. I want to be on the good side, the winning side, the right side. I know who the captain is: Christ, and I've read his written orders - that's what I've got. I've read lots of other people's impressions of those orders too. But I find my own reading of those orders to be clearer, cleaner, and more directly what they actually SAY in their original languages. Therefore, I am going to follow what Christ said as he said it, directly. I know that the men who read the orders differently mean well, and I forgive everybody (even when they fulminate at me that I am in danger - or worse - where I don't agree with their read). That doesn't make me agree with their read, or feel any worry. The man I'm worried about pleasing is Jesus, and I know I'm really a pretty poor excuse for a soldier and servant. I'm brave and I'm honest, but I really like the human form, and most especially the naked female form, and that is never going to change; nor am I going to be able to completely resist going right down that path, if only mentally, for precisely the reason that the drunk returns to his wine, the addict returns to his crack, the dog returns to his vomit and the sow returns to her mire. Maybe when I am old and my testosterone bottoms out at zero, I'll be immune to such temptations because the dead bird does not leave the nest. But then again, maybe not. In any case, it is what it is. I don't go committing BINARY adultery, which I do distinguish from the "adultery of the heart" of which Jesus spoke. I don't know whether he put the two as exactly equal (if so, why did he add the "of the heart" business). I know that even the latter is bad, according to Jesus. So, there is a recurring, insistent infection of sin in me that isn't going to go away, and that gets a boost from demons (one of them once was VISIBLE) that isn't going to go away anytime soon. I know that 40 continuous day of fasting on water alone does chase those demons out. I also know that a few days more than that will also chase out my biological pilot light, and once fed, the demons return. Rather than agonize about it, I recognize that it is what it is, and I start looking to what the Captain has to say. Well, he says "Repent!", which I do, and "Stop sinning", which I do sometimes, but return to the vomit. So I look at what else he said, and I see that he says that great sins are forgiven to those who forgive, but that those who are unforgiving pay those sins in Gehenna, and stay there in Gehenna until the last penny is paid. Gehenna sounds Purgatorial to me. I think Purgatory is right there in the Scripture, right out of Jesus' mouth, and that Gehenna/Purgatory is quite different from the Lake of Fire. Gehenna is for a time - UNTIL the debt is paid - which may be until the end of time, but the Lake of Fire is after judgment, and if you're thrown in there, that's the second death, and for good. Two different places, with two different purposes. One is debtor's prison for the debt of sin. The other is a place of execution, with no hope of rising again: you're disgusting, and you're DONE for good, because you're not going to soil the carpets in the City of God. Because Jesus is the only Judge, nobody enters the City except by passing his judgment. That's what he means when he says that none comes to the Father except through him. He is indeed the gate - he judges. But he judges by DEEDS, not my beliefs in the head. He said that. And that - and Gehenna - are why there is hope for non-Christians who are virtuous pagans, who do the proper deeds (because of their own traditions) and who are forgiving. Jesus defined "belief" in him as doing what he said. He asked point blank: "What good does it do you to say you follow me if you don't do what I say." That's the whole answer to those who say that belief that Jesus is the Son of God is the key to entering the City. Jesus said no, it's deeds that are the key. Therefore, deeds are the key, and the arguments to the contrary are wrong. I don't think Paul said otherwise, if he's read write, but if Paul DID say otherwise, then Paul was wrong too, because Jesus was God, and Jesus trumps all else. And the REASON I believe all this? Because of direct personal miracles, and direct revelations, and the corroboration of the truth of Christianity by physical miracles (Shroud, Lanciano, Incorruptibles, Lourdes Healing), the complete LACK of any comparable miracles for any other faith). So, it's true that Jesus was divine, and I saw him, the Dove, the City, etc. But he didn't tell me anything specific. The little bits of conversation I had with God were about PHYSICS, and had nothing to do with standard religion. So I'm left with no greater knowledge than anybody else about what God WANTS - I just know for sure that God IS. I'm left, then, with a Jesus who is, but who is content free...and the only place that I can see what Jesus said is the Scriptures. Therefore, the Gospels and Revelation, where he speaks (and the first couple of chapters of Acts), are THE Scriptures that count, and everything else is background material or human reaction to that. Of course I read Scripture so that it all corroborates Jesus, and where there is tension, I diminish or disregard the Scripture that contradicts Jesus. Then I work hard to see if I can make the contradictions go away. I find with Paul that I can, but it's a lot of work. I find that most of my disagreements with other Christians is because Christians love what Paul said far more than they love what Jesus said. I obviously cannot follow anybody there. PAUL never embraced me or dove into my face or grabbed my arm. Jesus and the Dove and God did those things. Paul and I both serve them. I love Paul, and I don't think that he thinks differently than me, really. But I do think that millions of Christians really misread Paul and set him in opposition to Jesus, and given that tendency that I see, I never quote Paul as authority for anything. I always quote Jesus directly, or Elohiym or YHWH. All authority that I ever cite are words spoken directly by God in Scripture, never words spoken ABOUT God by men, be they prophets or apostles. This is not because I don't treasure them, but rather, because I find Christians to be contentious and assertive of authority, but it's really hard for any Christian to argue with GOD. And Jesus himself said so many dozens of time 'deeds, Deeds, DEEDS' that it's perfectly clear what HE expects, anyway. That ended up being a tour-de-force answer, but why not? There are so many open questions on so many threads, I figured I'd just answer them all at once, magisterially, for me, and give my actual judgments on the matter, and the reasons WHY I believe what I believe (and why I believe at all). Having done that, I can recede into the background, because what else is there to say? I'm not suggesting that everybody fall in line behind me, first of all because I know they're not going to, and secondly because I never would have myself without divine revelation. That's why I emphasize the physical miracles so very much: because they CAN prove the divinity of Christ and existence of God to anybody who will really look. I've become repetitive. Time to cut this off. Good night!
I am old and the fire still is lit. Fortunately there aren't many opportunities to act on it outside of the accepted boundaries. Dear God, please make Jimmy Carter be wrong!!!!!!!!!!
I knew I would be sorry. What the heck does this have to do with the consumption of the Eucarhist forms with the diminshment of Christ's human side?
Another question I have is: Were the disciples literally eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ as He stood in front of them during the Last Supper (during the Passover seder); which was before His crucifixion? Then, after the resurrection were Christians literally eating the flesh and drinking the blood of the resurrected and glorified Christ?
"Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words." Gregory of Nyssa
What would they say about Caholics, the mryiad of individual Protest-ant sects, the various Orthodx sects? They usually say that Catholics and Orthodox are the main stream Christians, while numerous Protestant sects that were founded after Luther and Calvin are marginal Christians. They treat the first seriously the second with some disdain. Mormons or JW they see as batty and not worthy of attention. Let me use an analogy, when you want to learn about Hinduism, where do you start? With the Indian history written by the most renown Hindu scholars, with the main-stream Vedanta schools, befriending main-stream Hindu, visiting India? Or would you start with a random American street follower of some West based guru, like "don't worry be happy" guy?
You tone is not reverent enough. You got sufficient answers, so we can move on.
Interesting and serious question. I put some thought into it over the years. First while for the Latin Church the key notion is what is licit, valid, legal, legitimate, approved for the East it is what has power, efficacy, charisma, grace. Using a medical analogy - a Latin will ask "is a given bottle of pills legal? Is it expired/out of date? For the Orthodox it is "will it work? will it help or cause harm?", "is it active?". ("valid" medicine might be useless, out of date medicine might be just fine) So if a Catholic sneaks in and receives Orthodox Communion, this is my understanding what takes place. If he/she did in the irreverent spirit, I would be appalled and worried not so much at the disrespect, but at the thought of a spiritual toxicity that can results from the wrong use of heavenly medicine. If a Catholic does it naively with reverence and fear the merciful God is the judge and physician. But if a Catholic is open to knowledge and instruction he has to know that by joining the Orthodox communion, he becomes de facto Orthodox and he is not allowed to go back to Roman Catholicism. He must ask for chrismation/confirmation, go through the steps recommended by the Orthodox priest or bishop to formalize and complete his belonging. Welcome to the fold, brother, do not look back :)
As I see it, Orthodox neither came to the doctrine of the transubstantiation, nor rejected it. They see it rather as unnecessary and undue. Why? Because it brings the post-Aristitelian scholastic terms of substance, accidents, species without compelling dogmatic necessity. For the Sacrament it is sufficient to believe the words of Christ that Sacrament is true, real and necessary.
The Fount of Immortality does not get diminished, the more drink the more is there.
In simplest terms, a mikvah is a washing, a spiritual washing. Do you wash your hands by sprinkling? Do you bath by sprinkling? Just curious about Frankish/Latin hygiene habits. :)
That is nothing more than speculation.
“Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org
Thanx
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
Using a medical analogy - a Latin will ask "is a given bottle of pills legal? Is it expired/out of date? For the Orthodox it is "will it work? will it help or cause harm?", "is it active?". ("valid" medicine might be useless, out of date medicine might be just fine) So if a Catholic sneaks in and receives Orthodox Communion, this is my understanding what takes place. If he/she did in the irreverent spirit, I would be appalled and worried not so much at the disrespect, but at the thought of a spiritual toxicity that can results from the wrong use of heavenly medicine. Thank you for the comments and thoughts. I will reply the way I see it. I can't speak for the "Latin Church". And even though I am (partly) a Frank (not figuratively as a "Westerner", but literally, as a person of French origin whose people partly came out of Eastern France - a LITERAL Frankish French, besisdes also being a Basque and a Celt and a Saami and a Dane, from other branches of my family), I won't speak as a "Frank". I'll speak as me. The Latin Church does indeed seem to be very concerned by what is licit, valid, legal, legitimate and approved. And the Eastern Orthodox do seem to be concerned by what has power, efficacy, charisma and grace. I am concerned by all of those things. Let me give you a very simple example: I grew up around Jews, a lot of Jews. Half of the kids in my school were Jewish, and the only friends that I keep contact with from that era are Jewish. I live near New York City, where there are huge numbers of Jews. I've been to more bar and bas mitvahs than I can remember, and brises, and dinners. But I've never been to a Passover seder. I've been invited, but I always demur. It is not from prejudice. I would like to attend, but I don't want to attend enough to go get myself circumcised. For, you see, I read the Torah too, and I see that strangers who sojourn with Jews, who want to eat the Passover, may do so, IF they are first circumcised. That is what YHWH said in the Torah. Now, my Jewish friends say this is ridiculous as a reason to not come eat the Passover seder. They say that nobody, absolutely nobody, cares about that, and nobody would dream of asking, and that it's just weird that I even care about that, because it's not a rule of Judaism. And besides, we're not in Israel. (And I think to myself - and further, the Temple's down so the ritual doesn't have sacramental meaning either.) I hear all the logic, and it all makes sense. But then I hear YHWH saying very clearly: strangers who eat the Passover with you must be circumcised. So, perhaps the Jews don't care about the rule, and perhaps I think the whole body of rules has expired, but I am still not going to break an obvious rule given by God in order to eat a dinner. Because maybe God DOES care about his laws after all. He expelled Adam and Eve from the Garden for eating a piece of fruit, and killed them too. A Passover seder is a commemorative dinner that was ordained by God for a purpose. He put rules on it. I don't believe that men can change those rules, and I can't eat the meal according to the rules that God gave. So I won't. It's just as simple as that. God speaks to different people in different ways. He spoke to the people of the East they way they need to be spoken too, and he spoke to the Franks the way we need to be spoken too. French people are not Greeks or vice versa, and neither would be happy or completely satisfied with the solutions of the other. That's just true. My mind is, without Christianity, logical, mathematical and somewhat severe, like Descartes or Paschal or any of the other mathematicians or scientists, or theologians, who have emerged from my race. I do agree with the Greeks that all of the things Greeks care about matter, because they DO, to me anyway. But the things Franks care about matter also, every bit as much, to Franks anyway. It's not a pose. Greece and Rome came out of the Mediterranean Sea, but the Franks and Celts came out of the Northern Forests. We look at the world a little differently, and perhaps because the cold North is a harsher world, we are more in tune with the physical, logical, and rulebound aspect of it. It's easier to die in the North than the South, though Southerners don't live as long historically because of disease. These things both matter. I'm just a small person in a big world, and I recognize that there are boundaries that were not established by caprice. I recognize that what the Orthodox are doing is just as sacramental as what the Celts and Franks are doing, but I recognize that it is different, and across a border, and I respect borders, because they are necessary for keeping the peace. And perhaps Franks do know a bit more about how precious keeping the peace is, because we have smashed it to pieces so many times in our martial ardor. That's the other thing Franks have always been better than Greeks or Latins, or Germans or Celts at: war. That's why the Muslims didn't win, which is good. It's also why Constantinople was sacked, which is bad. I think that things have settled out in peace at borders that make sense, and that the future requires diplomacy, not force. And I don't see breaking the rules in an exercise of individual liberty as helping anybody. It doesn't help Christian civilization for the reasons a Frank cares about (and those things matter, because people are hotheaded and they fight...at least Western people do). And it doesn't help the individuals for the reasons a Greek like you cares about either. And I myself, personally, think that BOTH concerns are licit, valid, and true - and that disregarding does not improve charity or grace. The Orthodox are fully my brethren, as far as I am concerned. And I don't feel estranged from them at all. But our Churches are estranged, and that still has to be worked out before it would be right for me to walk into an Orthodox Church and take communion, for reasons similar to the reason I demur at eating Passover Seders. It's just not right, not yet anyway, and I know it.
At the best Hindu restaurant that I could find.
Finally found what I was looking for. I think a bit ago we were discussing the difference between a backsliding Christian and an outright apostasy. Then I remembered something Gary posted some time back that "how" people die tells us a lot. Here's one example: An awful death William Pope was at one time a member of the Methodist Church and seemingly a saved and happy man. His wife, a devoted Christian, died triumphantly. After her death, however, his zeal for religion declined, and by associating with backslidden hypocrites he apostatised and walked the path of spiritual ruin. His companions even professed to believe in the redemption of devils. William admired them, visited pubs with them and in time became a complete drunkard. He finally became a disciple of Thomas Paine and associated with a number of deistical people. They would assemble together on Sundays to confirm each other in their infidelity and often amused themselves by throwing the Word of God on the floor, kicking it around the room and treading it under their feet. One day William took seriously ill with tuberculosis. Mr. Rhodes visited him, exhorted him to repentance and confidence in the Almighty Saviour, and also prayed with him before leaving. In the evening, William again sent for Mr. Rhodes. He found William in the utmost distress, overwhelmed with bitter anguish and despair. He endeavoured to encourage him by mentioning several cases in which God had saved the greatest of sinners, but he answered, “No case of any that has been mentioned is comparable to mine. I have no contrition; I cannot repent. God will damn me! I know the day of grace is lost.” Mr. Rhodes asked him if he had ever really known anything of the mercy and love of God. “O yes,” he replied, “many years ago I truly repented and sought the Lord and found peace and happiness. But I have turned my back on Him, scoffed at Him and now I am damned forever! I know the day of grace is past, gone, never more to return! I cannot pray; my heart is quite hardened. I have no desire to receive any blessing at the hand of God.” He then cried out, “Oh, the hell, the torment, the fire that I feel within me! Oh, eternity! eternity! To dwell forever with devils and damned spirits in the burning lake must be my portion – and justly so!” William often and loudly repeated the reasons for his impending doom: “I have crucified the Son of God afresh, and counted the blood of the covenant an unholy thing! Oh, that wicked and horrible deed of blaspheming against the Holy Spirit, which I know I have committed.” He was often heard to exclaim, “I want nothing but hell! Come, o devil, and take me!” At another time he said, “Oh, what a terrible thing it is! Once I could, and would not; now I want and cannot!” He declared that he was best satisfied when cursing. He passed away – without God. More here: http://www.truegospel.co/articles/english/spiritual-devotion/257- death-bed- experiences
"Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words." Gregory of Nyssa
At the best Hindu restaurant that I could find. So at what restaurant one would start learning about Fundamentalist Protestants? Chick-fil-A?
Thank you. Evangelicals turn the other cheek.
“Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org
Yes. It is in dogmatic definitions by the Ecumenical Councils (in the Creed)
Trying to discredit the Bible and what it stands for by saying Jesus didn't exist as a historical figure only as a "Story or myth". I would say kooks pretty much describes them. Makes you wonder how far the skeptics will go to push forward their "side of the story"?
“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.”
Your question asked if there was still a human nature in Christ. It did not refer to the Euchrist.
“Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org
I wouldn't want to make that argument. According to tradition, all of the Apostles except John died bad deaths (and John was tortured by lived), many of them quite gruesome. (The Scriptures only tell us how James died.) Joan of Arc was burnt alive, and many of the missionaries to foreign lands were slowly tortured over many hours before they finally expired. The chaplain at Ground Zero on the morning of the attack was hit by falling debris and died. Many of the best people died the most horrendous deaths at the hands of Nazis and Fascists and Communists. During the Mexican Revolution, the most violent of revolutionaries tortured captive Christians most hideously. No, I don't think I would make the argument that the way a man dies tells us too much. In fact, the fact of being faithful seems to provoke other men to greater evil, converting the bullet through the head into hours of harrowing burnings and blindings and castrations and other things, all to express hatred aroused by Christianity. Christ didn't get off easy, and neither do Christians. Pope John Paul II died a slow, miserable, public death curled up with Parkinson's. Now, there are those who hate the Papacy and Catholicism who would trumpet that this "proves" his evil. But then, Ronald Reagan also suffered a long, slow, incapacitating, miserable decline unto death. I don't think it works to look at the means of death, because the Devil and demons are very present in this world, and urge the mean to perpetrate horrors on good people, to do as much damage as possible.
According to tradition, all of the Apostles except John died bad deaths (and John was tortured by lived), many of them quite gruesome. Not the manner of how one dies, but one's heart and conviction when the time comes. That is what I was opining on.
"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
Wow, I had never seen that, I must give it some thought.
I knew Thomas Paine was a deist, but never knew he and his followers were such haters of God's Written Word.
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." (2 Timothy 3:16-17)
Now a different example. Compare the two. The experience of a believing young man Augustus M. Toplady died in London at the age of 38. He was the author of these immortal words: Rock of Ages, cleft for me, Let me hide myself in Thee; Let the water and the blood, From Thy wounded side which flowed, Be of sin the double cure – Save from wrath and make me pure. He had everything before him to make life desirable, yet when death drew near, his soul exulted in gladness: “Sickness is no affliction, pain no curse, death itself no dissolution; and yet how this soul of mine longs to be gone – like a bird imprisoned in its cage, it longs to take its flight. Had I wings like a dove, then would I fly away to the bosom of God and be at rest forever.” About an hour before he died he seemed to awaken from a gentle slumber. “Oh, what delights! Who can fathom the joys of heaven? What a bright sunshine has been spread around me! I have no words to express it. I know it cannot be long now till my Saviour will come for me... surely after the glories that God has manifested to my soul! All is light, light, light – the brightness of His own glory! O come, Lord Jesus, come quickly!” Then he closed his eyes, his spirit going to be with Christ; his body falling asleep, to be awakened with others of like precious faith on that great day when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven “to be glorified in His saints and to be admired among all those who believe” (2 Thess. 1:10). "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." (2 Timothy 3:16-17)
Ah. Well, that, yes certainly. I agree.
Excellent. I needed this. Bob
Here's another Bob: Stretching the hand to God’s kingdom A former governor of Massachusetts, John Brooks, said the following words on his death-bed: “I see nothing terrible in death. In looking to the future I have no fears, for I know in whom I have believed. I look back upon my past life with humility and am aware of my many imperfections, but I now rest my soul on the mercy of my Creator through the only Mediator, His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. Oh, what ground of hope there is in that saying of the Apostle that God is in Christ reconciling the guilty world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them” (2 Cor. 5:19). He put out his hand and was asked what he was reaching for. “A kingdom,” he whispered just as he passed away. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." (2 Timothy 3:16-17)
Over the past few months I have had much time t reflect on my life, I also know where I am going.
Here's the concluding paragraphs of the site I've been quoting: It is finished! The meaning of the last word uttered by Jesus Christ on the cross before He died enables all who truly believe in Him as their Saviour, to die in the peace and victory of Golgotha. Almost 2 000 years ago Jesus cried out on the cross: “It is finished!” All the demands for the salvation of sinners were met on the cross, and people everywhere are to be faced with the choice of either accepting or rejecting it. To be for or against Christ, and soon to be judged for all eternity in terms of your relationship with Him, calls for a clear understanding of what the atoning death of Jesus on the cross means to you. What is the full significance of His dying-word when He shouted with a loud voice: “It is finished”? Jesus was nailed to the cross to pay the penalty for the sins of lost humanity (Isa. 53:5-6). As “the wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6: 23), He was not only to suffer physically but also to be executed on our behalf. It was therefore only when He died that He fulfilled all the requirements for God’s plan of salvation. During those very last moments when Jesus gave up His life, He said, “Father, into Your hands I commend My spirit!” and then exclaimed loudly: “Tetelestai!” – “It is finished!” (Luke 23:46; John 19:30). To fully comprehend the significance of the word tetelestai that was uttered by Jesus at the moment of His death, we should briefly investigate its applications during the first century. This word was more meaningful to those people than to us today, and we will do well to retrieve its original meaning. Fully paid. In the first instance, according to the Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, the word tetelestai was used as the first word on a receipt. It therefore conveys the meaning of fully paid. Have you ever considered the fact that Jesus actually bought you when He shed His blood and gave His life for you? Paul reminds us of this truth: “For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s” (1 Cor. 6:20). Peter said, “...you were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver or gold, from your aimless conduct... but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot” (1 Pet. 1:18-19). The testimony of the elders in heaven confirms their full realisation that they had been bought with the blood of the Lamb, when they sang: “You were slain (sacrificed) and with Your blood You purchased men unto God from every tribe and language and people and nation” (Rev. 5:9; Amplified Bible). Dear reader, do you have the assurance that the price for your sins has been fully paid? Do you comply with the condition of repentance and confession of your sins to have them forgiven? The Word of God says: “He who covers his sins will not prosper, but whoever confesses and forsakes them will have mercy” (Prov. 28: 13; see also 1 John 1:8-9). After conversion, we ought to walk with the Lord and keep our record clean by confessing all sins of which the Holy Spirit convicts us (1 John 2:1-2). Don’t enter the new life with a heritage of carnal attitudes and unconfessed sins. It will eventually cripple you spiritually. Jesus has paid the full price to do a complete work in your life. He wants to save and sanctify you. Don’t leave the throne of grace with hidden sins that have not been confessed and forsaken. Sentence served. During the first century it was common practice to nail the charge-sheet of a prisoner to his cell-door. The offences for which he was convicted were written on the charge-sheet, as well as the penalty imposed upon him. After he served his sentence, the charge-sheet was removed from the door and cancelled by writing across it in big letters: Tetelestai (‘fully served’). It was then given to him and nobody could ever charge him again for these offences. He had paid the price for his trespasses in full by serving the entire sentence. In a spiritual sense all human beings are captives of Satan, “for all have sinned” (Rom. 3:23). They find themselves in his death cells awaiting their trial before the great white throne where they will be condemned to eternal death. The prison master is the devil, and no person can free himself of his own accord from this severe bondage, or from the death sentence imposed upon him. To save lost sinners, Jesus Christ willingly served the death sentenced that has already in principle been imposed upon all sinners (Rom. 6:23). After His resurrection from the grave, He is in a position to cancel the charge-sheet of every lost sinner by writing in red letters with His blood across it: Tetelestai – Sentence served. “You were dead in sins, and your sinful desires were not yet cut away. Then He gave you a share in the very life of Christ, for He forgave all your sins, and blotted out the charges proved against you, the list of his commandments which you had not obeyed. He took this list of sins and destroyed it by nailing it to Christ's cross” (Col. 2:13-14; Living Bible). The Saviour was indeed sent to earth “to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house” (Isa. 42:7; King James Version). His mission to free those who are spiritual captives of Satan, is also reiterated in Isaiah 61: “The Spirit of the Lord God is upon Me, because the Lord has anointed Me to preach good tidings to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to those who are bound” (Isa. 61:1). Have all the sins of which the devil accuses you before the throne of God been blotted out by the blood of the Lamb? If so, nobody can ever accuse you again for those sins, no matter how serious they were, because the sentence for them has been fully served. Victory gained. A third usage of the term tetelestai was related to successful military campaigns against the enemy. When a general returned from the battle- field and paraded his captives of war in the streets of Rome, he proclaimed his victory by shouting: Tetelestai... tetelestai... By this victory shout a clear statement was made that the enemy was conquered and its power broken: mission accomplished! Although it was His dying-word on the cross, Jesus also proclaimed His victory over the enemy with the shout: Tetelestai! To die was a major victory for Jesus, “that through death He might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil” (Heb. 2:14). “Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it” (Col. 2:15). Jesus conquered the enemy, but has not yet obliterated him. The devil is still very active on earth; therefore we are called upon to share in the victory of Calvary and become “more than conquerors through Him that loved us” (Rom. 8:37). There is a battle to be fought and a victory to be gained. Let us make the most of the remaining time by serving the Lord and extending His kingdom on earth. The shadows are falling and the sands of time are rapidly running out. Like the Lord Jesus, we should also say: “I must work the works of Him who sent Me while it is day; the night is coming when no one can work” (John 9:4). The night of God’s judgements in the great tribulation is fast approaching, and there is still much work to be done for Him before the last trumpet sounds. The lost must be saved and Christians must be spiritually prepared to meet their heavenly Bridegroom. Allow the Lord to complete His wonderful work in your life: “Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for it, that He might sanctify and cleanse it... that He might present it to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that it should be holy and without blemish” (Eph. 5:25-27). The Lord Jesus is not only our Saviour from the sins, corruptive influence and spiritual captivity of Satan; He is also our sanctification to lead us into a life of holiness, victory and abundant service in His everlasting kingdom. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." (2 Timothy 3:16-17)
From a post on another thread you mentioned you wanted to study more about Christ. Here's a good start:
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." (2 Timothy 3:16-17)
If it's Disneyland best make sure you measles shots are up to date.
I don't think I said that. If I did, I meant to say I always want to learn about Religion. Thanks for the link.
I suggest asking God first as He is always willing to oblige - at least that is what He has been telling everyone.
opps, i don't do vaccines.
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.
#2. To: Fibr Dog, TooConservative, GarySpFc, Vicomte13, Don, BobCeleste, listener, SOSO, liberator (#0)
#3. To: Fibr Dog (#0)
#4. To: redleghunter, TooConservative, GarySpFc, Vicomte13, Don, BobCeleste, listener, Liberator (#0)
Although the first-century gospel fragment is small, the text will provide clues as to whether the Gospel of Mark changed over time, Evans said.
#5. To: SOSO, GarySpFc, Orthodoxa (#4)
Maybe this will led to a new Council of Nicea?
#6. To: redleghunter, GarySpFc, Orthodoxa, vicomte13 (#5)
The NT books were complete long before Nicea.
#7. To: redleghunter (#5)
What this fragment will do is confirm one of the many families of manuscripts we already have.
#8. To: redleghunter, GarySpFc, Orthodoxa, vicomte13 (#6)
But what happens if the new finds show that the texts of Mark in fact did change over time prior to the determinations made by Nicea? IMO that is a toal game changer.....not to mention very solid support for my position about the possible lack of fidelity of Scripture as we know it today.
#9. To: Vicomte13 (#7)
Doesn't sound like there's much text here.
#10. To: SOSO (#6)
But what happens if the new finds show that the texts of Mark in fact did change over time prior to the determinations made by Nicea? IMO that is a toal game changer.....not to mention very solid support for my position about the possible lack of fidelity of Scripture as we know it today.
#11. To: SOSO (#4)
Maybe this will led to a new Council of Nicea?
#12. To: Orthodoxa (#11)
Maybe this will led to a new Council of Nicea?
#13. To: Orthodoxa (#11)
It was the Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, which decided the Canon of Scripture.
#14. To: SOSO (#12)
Ah, I love an open minded person. Don't worry, the religious establishment has your back.
#15. To: Vicomte13 (#10)
It won't be clear-cut.
#16. To: Orthodoxa (#14)
I love it when the first thing someone who is not a traditional Christian
#17. To: SOSO, GarySpFc, Orthodoxa, vicomte13, liberator (#6)
But what happens if the new finds show that the texts of Mark in fact did change over time prior to the determinations made by Nicea?
#18. To: SOSO (#13)
Exactly which Church was that? The Roman Catholic? The Protestants (each and every one of them)? The Greek Orthodox? The Armenian Orthodox? etc., etc., etc.
#19. To: SOSO (#16)
Do you know something that God doesn't, i.e. that I am not a traditional Christian?
#20. To: SOSO, Orthodoxa, Vicomte13, GarySpFc (#8)
BTW I do not believe that the PTB will allow this to happen. There is too much power and money on the line. At best we will likely get a Shroud of Turin type of situation ot yes it is, no it ain't.....if anything at all.
#21. To: Fibr Dog (#0)
#22. To: SOSO (#6)
But what happens if the new finds show that the texts of Mark in fact did change over time prior to the determinations made by Nicea? IMO that is a toal game changer
#23. To: Orthodoxa (#18)
#24. To: redleghunter, GarySpFc, Fibr Dog, BobCeleste, Orthodoxa (#2)
#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?
#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.
#27. To: A K A Stone (#21)
#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.
#29. To: A K A Stone (#22)
You want to put some money on it?
#30. To: TooConservative, redleghunter (#26)
#31. To: TooConservative (#26)
#32. To: redleghunter (#23)
I have to say your anecdote was hilarious:)
#33. To: redleghunter (#25)
Good point. I would add, however, they argued more specifically for the Deity of Jesus Christ, Son of God.
#34. To: TooConservative (#26)
As should all diligent bible students. The Orthodox do cultivate a very long memory.
#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.
#36. To: Vicomte13 (#35)
#37. To: redleghunter, TooConservative, Vicomte13, SOSO (#30)
#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.
#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.
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.
#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.
#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.
#42. To: A Pole (#38)
In which language the New Testament was written? Latin? German/English/Swedish? Greek? Armenian?
#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.
#44. To: SOSO (#41)
You claim that the differences between the varies translations of Scripture is trivial. That is willful deception.
#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?
#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.
#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.
#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.
#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.
#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.
#51. To: All (#46)
I recall Santa coming to the defense of Dr. Who in a holiday special ;P
#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.
#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.
#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".
#55. To: Murron (#54)
Best comment of the New Year!
#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.
#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".
#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.
#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.
#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.
#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
#62. To: All (#60)
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.
#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.
#64. To: All (#62)
The First and Second Testaments are not two separate books bound together between a single cover. Rather, they are a unified canon. All the books of that canon contribute to the plotline of God’s covenantal relationship with humanity through Jesus. You can think of the First and Second Testaments as act 1 and act 2 of the same drama. Each book, therefore, must be understood and interpreted within the framework of the greater whole.
Jesus Christ is the glue that binds both Testaments together. As Brevard Childs says, “The completely New of the gospel is formulated in terms of the Old. Herein lies the deep mystery surrounding the two testaments. Separate and yet undivided, two voices yet the sound is similar, an Old Word pointing to the New, yet the New is only known in the Old.”
That said, it’s a profound mistake to detach Scripture—both First and Second Testaments—from Christ. The Bible has no real meaning unless it is grounded in Christ. The beauty of Scripture for followers of Jesus is to reveal Christ."
#65. To: ALL (#63)
#66. To: GarySpFC (#64)
That said, it’s a profound mistake to detach Scripture—both First and Second Testaments—from Christ. The Bible has no real meaning unless it is grounded in Christ. The beauty of Scripture for followers of Jesus is to reveal Christ."
#67. To: SOSO (#42)
"In which language the New Testament was written?"
#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.
#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.
#70. To: Vicomte13, Orthodoxa (#35)
#71. To: A K A Stone, SOSO (#50)
God relationship with men is individual, one-to-one with no human intermediaries required.
#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.
#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.
#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?
#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.
#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.
#77. To: A Pole (#76)
(Edited)
And then when the Barbarian Franks and Germans invaded they also changed the nature of the Western Church.
#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.
#79. To: Orthodoxa (#47)
For that matter, there are still a few pockets of the Orthodox Church where people worship in Aramaic.
#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.
#81. To: redleghunter (#17)
Which would put to rest the Jewish conspiracy theories that Jesus Christ was a second century machination of heretics.
#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.
#83. To: SOSO (#49)
God relationship with men is individual, one-to-one with no human intermediaries required.
#84. To: TooConservative (#80)
This is why older people who read the KJB can often quote extensive passages from memory.
#85. To: Vicomte13 (#83)
Except for baptism, at least...
#86. To: A Pole (#85)
Except for baptism, at least... Or Communion which means communion.
#87. To: CZ82 (#81)
#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.
#89. To: Vicomte13 (#83)
Except for baptism, at least...
#90. To: A Pole (#85)
Or Communion which means communion.
#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.
#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.
#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,
#94. To: Vicomte13, A Pole, All (#83)
God relationship with men is individual, one-to-one with no human intermediaries required.
#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. : )
#96. To: redleghunter (#95)
#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."
#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?
#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.
#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.
#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."
#102. To: Vicomte13, SoSo (#83)
God relationship with men is individual, one-to-one with no human intermediaries required.
#103. To: GarySpFC (#101)
But he said to them, “I have food to eat that you know nothing about.”
#104. To: SOSO (#93)
I asked Gary this question and in typical fashion he ducked it. I will now ask you all.
#105. To: GarySpFC (#104)
I have answered this question several times, but some don't listen.
#106. To: redleghunter, Vicomte13, Orthodoxa, TooComservative GarySpFc, A Pole, A K A Stone, sneakypete, Pericles, CZ82, Zesta, (#98)
#107. To: redleghunter, Vicomte13 (#89)
Indeed you do need another Christian to dunk you in the water.
#108. To: Pericles, Orthodoxa (#75)
SOSO are you claiming that Shakespeare's English is another language than modern English?
#109. To: A Pole, Orthodoxa (#73)
For example an atheist or Buddhist can see that Jehovah Witnesses or Mormons are not traditional Christian.
#110. To: A Pole, Orthodoxa (#74)
This teaching that Christ Himself spoke:
#111. To: SOSO, GarySpFc (#105)
The question is when does faith first come
#112. To: SOSO (#106)
{Sigh}
#113. To: SOSO (#107)
No, you need another of your church to baptize you.
#114. To: A Pole, Orthodoxa, Vicomte13, redlgehunter, GarySpFc, Fibr Dog, Don, BobCeleste, listener, liberator, All (#68)
English of today is different from the King James English or Shakespeare. Yet it does not make Shakespeare a Greek writer.
#115. To: SOSO, TooConservative (#108)
I am claiming that those that only speak modern English cannot perfectly communicate with those that only speak Shakespeare's English and visce versa. The may understand each other on 99% of things but not all things and not to a level of 100% certainty.
#116. To: SOSO, A Pole, Orthodoxa (#110)
The the Greek Orthodox church is not Christian because they do not believe in the Eucharist as being the boby and blood of Christ?
#117. To: redleghunter, TooConservative (#115)
I mean, can anyone go to the Canterbury Tales and figure this out?!
#118. 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?
#119. To: redleghunter (#99)
...Obey Him and get in that water and proclaim that faith for the Glory of God.
#120. To: Orthodoxa, Vicomte13, redleghunter, TooComservative, GarySpFc, A Pole, A K A Stone, sneakypete, Pericles, CZ82, Zesta, liberator (#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 Scripture they would not be as useful.
#121. To: redleghunter, A Pole, Orthodoxa (#116)
I think what he is saying is that the Orthodox see this as a mystery and don't ascribe to a doctrine of transubstantiation.
#122. To: SOSO, A Pole, Orthodoxa (#109)
For example an atheist or Buddhist can see that Jehovah Witnesses or Mormons are not traditional Christian.
#123. To: SOSO, redleghunter, A Pole, Orthodoxa (#121)
think what he is saying is that the Orthodox see this as a mystery and don't ascribe to a doctrine of transubstantiation.
#124. To: Pericles, A Pole, Orthodoxa (#122)
That Arameans who are still left in the Holy Land somehow stopped worshipping Christ as the first Christians from their community did (and theirs was amongst the first Christians)?
#125. To: SOSO (#108)
I am claiming that those that only speak modern English cannot perfectly communicate with those that only speak Shakespeare's English and visce versa. The may understand each other on 99% of things but not all things and not to a level of 100% certainty.
#126. To: SOSO (#124)
(Edited)
at Arameans who are still left in the Holy Land somehow stopped worshipping Christ as the first Christians from their community did (and theirs was amongst the first Christians)?
#127. To: Pericles, redleghunter, A Pole, Orthodoxa (#123)
#128. To: Pericles (#126)
What do Armenians have to do with Arameans? I don't think you will live that down after this.
#129. To: SOSO, Orthodoxa, Vicomte13, redleghunter, GarySpFc, A Pole, A K A Stone, sneakypete, Pericles, CZ82, Zesta, liberator (#120)
You mean that the full breadth and scope of the Word of God is only for the well educated and those of ample intellectual prowess?
#130. To: SOSO, redleghunter, A Pole, Orthodoxa (#127)
(Edited)
o the Greek Orthodox eat and drink of Christ's flesh and blood as A Pole says Christ commands or don't they? Is it an integral, if not crucial, part of their Mass?
#131. To: SOSO (#128)
(Edited)
What do Armenians have to do with Arameans? I don't think you will live that down after this.
#132. To: TooConservative, Orthodoxa, Vicomte13, redleghunter, GarySpFc, A Pole, A K A Stone, sneakypete, Pericles, CZ82, Zesta, liberator (#129)
You might ask if the Catholic hierarchy only ever intended to use its sacred art to aid the salvation of the sighted and were therefore indifferent to the eternal fate of the blind.
#133. To: Pericles, redleghunter, A Pole, Orthodoxa (#130)
It kind of reminds me of the Simpsons when Apu was going for a citizenship test and was asked what caused the Civil War and Apu launched into a long complicated answer and the test giver said "just say slavery".
#134. To: Pericles (#131)
No, you thought Armenians were Arameans.
#135. To: A Pole (#72)
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.
#136. To: SOSO (#127)
Do the Greek Orthodox eat and drink of Christ's flesh and blood as A Pole says Christ commands or don't they? Is it an integral, if not crucial, part of their Mass?
#137. To: SOSO (#105)
The question is when does faith first come not what is required for salavation. Yes, some don't listen.
#138. To: Orthodoxa (#136)
Do the Greek Orthodox eat and drink of Christ's flesh and blood as A Pole says Christ commands or don't they? Is it an integral, if not crucial, part of their Mass?
#139. To: SOSO, A Pole (#110)
#140. To: Orthodoxa (#139)
A Pole clearly stated that the Orthodox believe that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ, and you respond as though he had said the opposite. Are you just trying to be contrarian here?
#141. To: SOSO (#140)
Do the attendees at the mass actually eat the bread (host) and drink the wine or not?
#142. 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.
#143. To: redleghunter, Vicomte13 (#91)
The bigger questions from (not to you, but in general to those who say we don't need organized religion or scripture) me are pretty straightforward: if we discard organized religion, as has been suggested, and then also discard Scripture as unreliable, and just rely on "The Holy Spirit" to tell us, how do we know that the spirit that's talking to us is Holy? Mohammed did that, rejecting both the pagan temples of his region and the Christian Church of the neighbors, and he wrote his own book, inspired by the spirit that spoke to him.
#144. To: Orthodoxa (#143)
#145. To: Orthodoxa (#141)
Do the attendees at the mass actually eat the bread (host) and drink the wine or not?
#146. To: SOSO, redleghunter, A Pole, Orthodoxa (#133)
It kind of reminds me of the Simpsons when Apu was going for a citizenship test and was asked what caused the Civil War and Apu launched into a long complicated answer and the test giver said "just say slavery".
#147. To: Pericles, redleghunter, A Pole, Orthodoxa (#146)
#148. To: TooConservative (#92)
Just for fun, don't forget the thief on the cross next to Jesus. That always makes these discussion more interesting. : )
#149. To: SOSO (#145)
Why won't you answer a most simply question? Are you deliberately being deceitful?
#150. To: Orthodoxa (#149)
Unless you are physically blind, you would know the answer to your question without anyone needing to remind you. The Eucharist is the focus of it. The answer to your question is not subtle or needing nuance.
#151. To: Vicomte13 (#148)
Men really want to bind God with laws and rules, to say whom Christ can save and under what conditions. Men make plans and rules and God laughs.
#152. To: Pericles (#123)
"But if thou seekest after the manner how this is, let it suffice thee to be told that it is by the Holy Ghost; in like manner as, by the same Holy Ghost, the Lord formed flesh to himself, and in himself, from the Mother of God; nor know I aught more than this, that the Word of God is true, powerful, and almighty, but its manner of operation unsearchable.” J. Damasc.
#153. To: SOSO (#117)
And stop aiding TC, please.
#154. To: TooConservative (#119)
#155. To: SOSO (#150)
(Edited)
Would the receiving the eucharistic forms by a Catholic, or a person of any of the Protest-ant sects that ascribe to the eucharist, at a Greek Orthodox mass have the same meaning and consequence as receiving the eucharistic forms in his own church mass and vice versa?
#156. To: Pericles, TooConservative (#123)
In this confession of faith enjoying wide acceptance throughout the seventeenth century Orthodox Church, Patriarch Dositheus teaches that Christ is “truly and really” present in the Eucharistic elements. He does not mention here the timing of the change, but simply that the bread and wine are “transubstantiated” (again, ¼µÄ¿ÅïÉùÂ) into the “true Body” and “true Blood” of the Lord.
#157. To: Vicomte13, Orthodoxa, redleghunter (#155)
If a Catholic were to take the eucharist at an Orthodox liturgy, from the perspective of Catholic belief that is eucharist, and the same thing as taking eucharist at a Catholic Mass.
#158. To: Pericles, SOSO, TooConservative, GarySpFc (#130)
the answer is yes even though the Orthodox don't have 'masses' and consider the Eucharist a holy mystery.
#159. To: redleghunter, Pericles, TooConservative, GarySpFc, Orthodoxa (#158)
Well there you have it.
#160. To: Vicomte13 (#152)
course, it also traps me in Catholicism/Orthodoxy, because the people who really believe that the bread and wine literally transform are proven right by the concrete physical evidence God left to prove it.
#161. To: GarySpFC, Vicomte13 (#160)
If that is true, then it follows that after you eat some of His flesh and drink His blood, then He is slightly less fully man.
#162. To: SOSO (#94)
Please offer your defintion.
#163. To: GarySpFC (#160)
(Edited)
If that is true, then it follows that after you eat some of His flesh and drink His blood, then He is slightly less fully man.
#164. To: SOSO (#161)
What? Jesus is not a renewable resource? Wow, I missed that memo as well.
#165. To: Vicomte13 (#163)
#166. To: GarySpFC (#164)
scripture?
#167. To: SOSO (#166)
#168. To: SOSO (#157)
One might get the beach front property the other a cold water flat.
#169. To: Vicomte13 (#168)
Maybe when I am old and my testosterone bottoms out at zero, I'll be immune to such temptations because the dead bird does not leave the nest. But then again, maybe not.
#170. To: GarySpFC (#167)
#171. To: GarySpFC (#160)
#172. To: SOSO (#109)
"For example an atheist or Buddhist can see that Jehovah Witnesses or Mormons are not traditional Christian."
#173. To: SOSO (#147)
a simple minded person can answer yes or no. Why all the obfuscation?
#174. To: Vicomte13 (#155)
For a Catholic to stride up to the altar and take communion in an Orthodox church is sacramentally licit - from a CATHOLIC perspective: that is the eucharist, but it will wound the other people present by inflaming passions, by transgressing boundaries (it may very well not be licit in the ORTHODOX perspective, and it's THEIR Church, for Heaven's sake)
#175. To: redleghunter (#156)
Thanks for the research. Did not know the Orthodox were Johnny come lately to the actual doctrine of transubstantiation. 17th century. Even with all the patristic writings where it could go either way. That's quite a leap for an ancient Church.
#176. To: GarySpFC (#160)
If that is true, then it follows that after you eat some of His flesh and drink His blood, then He is slightly less fully man.
#177. To: Vicomte13 (#162)
Similarly, hands must be washed before meals, and utensils, etc.
#178. To: A Pole (#176)
The Fount of Immortality does not get diminished, the more drink the more is there.
#179. To: redleghunter (#87)
#180. To: A Pole (#174)
First while for the Latin Church the key notion is what is licit, valid, legal, legitimate, approved for the East it is what has power, efficacy, charisma, grace.
#181. To: A Pole (#172)
Let me use an analogy, when you want to learn about Hinduism, where do you start?
#182. To: Vicomte13, GarySpFc, BobCeleste (#168)
#183. To: SOSO (#181)
"Let me use an analogy, when you want to learn about Hinduism, where do you start?"
#184. To: A Pole (#183)
#185. To: SOSO (#166)
Is there still a human nature of Christ?
#186. To: redleghunter (#87)
(Edited)
#187. To: SOSO (#170)
#188. To: redleghunter (#182)
"how" people die tells us a lot.
#189. To: Vicomte13 (#188)
I wouldn't want to make that argument.
#190. To: redleghunter (#182)
#191. To: BobCeleste (#190)
Wow, I had never seen that, I must give it some thought.
#192. To: BobCeleste, GarySpFc (#190)
Wow, I had never seen that, I must give it some thought.
#193. To: redleghunter (#189)
Not the manner of how one dies, but one's heart and conviction when the time comes. That is what I was opining on.
#194. To: redleghunter (#192)
#195. To: BobCeleste (#194)
#196. To: redleghunter (#195)
#197. To: BobCeleste (#196)
#198. To: Gatlin (#197)
#199. To: BobCeleste, redleghunter (#196)
Over the past few months I have had much time t reflect on my life, I also know where I am going.
#200. To: redleghunter (#198)
From a post on another thread you mentioned you wanted to study more about Christ. Here's a good start:
#201. To: Gatlin, redleghunter (#200)
If I did, I meant to say I always want to learn about Religion.
#202. To: SOSO (#199)
If it's Disneyland best make sure you measles shots are up to date.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]