Replies

Tainan:".. Actual reading of the article explains why the chosen words were used in describing this papyrus."

"In a statement, Mazza said, “This is an important and unexpected finding as it is one of the first recorded documents to use magic
in the Christian context," while the first charm ever found to refer to the Eucharist – the Last Supper – as the manna of the Old Testament”."

Actually I previously read the entire article
Actually , early CHristians believed themselves to be completed Jews- having found the Messiah
Hassidic / Orthodox Jews wear a 'Phylactery' in a small leather box on their forehead with scriptures in the small leather box.
They do so as they are commanded to have the word of God before them- no magical charm - rather a sign of their commitment to follow the word of God in all their dealings.
A "charm"..? No ! a litteral commandment from God , according to their beliefs.
It is no more a 'charm' than a scapular is to Catholics ( a reminder of who you are).
Or a mezuzah is to a Conservative Jew, while on the doorway/lintel of a Jewish household containing part of the Torah, it is no 'charm '. It is a reminder !
True Christians believe that they are 'completed Jews' , as they already have found the Messiah.
To call it a magical 'charm' is to diminsh its importance, and demonstrates the authors ignorance !!

You are right.

I guess the left is always looking for a way to give ligitamacy to pagan satanic “magic”, ie: if Christians in the Bible did it then it is of God.

Also funny how they don’t believe in the Bible, but will use it to try to prove ligitamacy.

It seems a bit of wind, not to your liking, went up your kilt re: my comment.
My apologies. I did not mean to post anything belittling your remarks or your knowledge of the subject.
My comment - "Semantics is a tricky game to try and play." was in reference to how the author phrased his description of the item.
I still think this is a valid observation. His use of the word "charm" is subject to scrutiny and question. However, I think that in the context of the dating of the article it is probably fairly accurate. This was regarded as an item that could, by the standards of that time period, classify it as a "charm" in how it was regarded by the contemporary wearer of the item. Today it would be insulting to many to use this term, "charm", to describe such an article.
IMO, judging and categorizing items such as this by todays' perspective is a troublesome issue.
This is what I meant by my comments. Poorly put forth it seems.