Sorry I'm too busy invoking Deborah, the Judge. Spell it out for me about, Phoebe please. Some translations have her as deacon, some as servant. Please elaborate. Further study https://biblehub.com/romans/16-1.htm scroll lowerd a servant διάκονον (diakonon) Noun - Accusative Feminine Singular Strong's Greek 1249: Probably from an obsolete diako; an attendant, i.e. a waiter; specially, a Christian teacher and pastor.
So should Deborah have sat down and shut up and let the menfolk lead or did the whole "women, shut up" thing only start in recent history?
Then again she may have been designated a servant, passing the bread to those in attendance. See above the various translations of the Greek.
WRONG Old Testament Hebrew (ancient) New Testament Greek (ancient) Message / Conversation betting interests My favorite Bibles are direct translations from the ancient scriptures to modern English. No Latin in between nor older English translations.
Exactly. Obviously there is something wrong with the narratives, assumptions, and dogmatic interpretations. Gal3:26So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. This passage has been heralded for centuries as the Standard of the New Covenant. It reveals a Moral Principle of human equality, reborn during the reformation, and growing as literacy and Reason prevailed over the Dark Age mandates. It was the BIBLE and Christianity, not wiccanism.. not hinduism.. not islam.. not atheism.. that ushered in the Age of Human Equality, and provided the basis for America, the Enlightenment, Natural Law, and scientific enquiry.
Interesting points. But, what you point out led away from "Christianity" and more of an adoption of deism as exemplified by the rise of the Masons. ANDAlthough Judaism is often claimed to be an androarchy it seems more of a difference of roles too rather than absolute dominance / subordination. AND that the Enlightenment as it occurred was most flourishing in nations with the highest concentrations of integrated Jews with the Spain would lend support to the above as opposed to France or Holland or Germany. Those in Eastern Europe were segregated. The Enlightenment was a Judeo Christian phenomena with Masonic involvement. A pressure cooker of thought and reinterpretation. And who better prepared to express thought and reinterpretation than students of the Talmud. (central thought, with commentaries around that thought, and commentaries around those commentaries page structure. (love to argue) Christians, even the Protestants then were more into doctrine by decree, don't think on it. Y'think? Commentary? Ooops, and don't forget the years after 1500 was a time of significant change is social drug use from beer/wine/spirits to more stimulating caffeine/coffee houses and tobacco too. And the American colonies had the cheapest supplies for the people. Coffee via Jewish trade from Caribbean to the colonies made it cheaper than imported tea and home grown tobacco.
I disagree. I see principles from the Enlightenment coming DIRECTLY from the reformation. 1. Seperation of church and state. 2. Montesquieu: checks and balances in governance. 3. Human equality.. no divine right of kings or ruling elite. 4. LAW, as absolute, over all.. e.g., 'sola scriptura'. 5. Natural Law.. inherent Rights to life, liberty, and property, concluded as self evident, from God. 6. Logic and reason, hallmarks of philosophy, were revived during the reformation, as the mandates of an elite were questioned. TRUTH, not decree, was the goal. Science and reason were tools to attain that goal.
@usfan You may have been replying before I finished editing. Might you reconsider, and NOT edit my illuminating thoughts.
We've been over this before, but this claim is completely false and there isn't a historian or linguist anywhere in the world (nor was there ever one nor will there ever be one) that supports this nonsense.
Again, i disagree. There was not a trend 'away' from Christianity, but repeated awakenings and revivals of christian influence and biblical principles. We have been, over the last 50 yrs or so, in a period of 'away from Christianity', but not during the last 5 centuries, which have been characterized by distinctive awakenings, with moral and social consequence. The American revolution can be exactly correlated to the first great awakening, c. 1730-1740s. Slavery, from another revival of Christianity early 19th century. Women's rights, civil rights, anti-elitism toward the Japanese imperialists and the Nazis.. ALL the movements toward human equality, inherent rights, democracy and self rule, directly correlated to awakenings and revivals of Christianity in the nations where such reform took place. Progressive education blatantly ignores the significance and influence of Christianity in these human advances, and preteds that they were all by atheists or critics hostile toward Christianity. It is easier (and shorter!) if i can reply to individual points, rather than address a longer post all at once.
You can't produce a legitimate Greek Bible written before the 7th Century for all of the gold in the universe. And the most you can do is maybe produce fragments of ancient Hebrew fairy tales. They are not the Old Testament.
Google searches - copy paste bold face reply to "when was . . written?" Mark, written around 70 AD, Matthew comes first in the Christian New Testament because, at the time the order of books in the New Testament was established, they believed that Matthew had written his Gospel first in a Hebrew original. Most scholars today readily believe that Mark was written first, and Matthew most likely second. The Gospel of Mark probably dates from c. AD 66–70, Matthew and Luke around AD 85–90, and John AD 90–110. Despite the traditional ascriptions all four are anonymous, and none were written by eyewitnesses. Like the rest of the New Testament, they were written in Greek. No mention of Latin. All some 500 years before your Greek Bible. Of course back then, these manuscripts were not organized in a Bible.
https://www.amazon.com/Unvarnished-New-Testament-Translation-Original/dp/0933999992 "Why not present the New Testament simply as it appears in the original Greek?" into contemporary English https://www.amazon.com/Jewish-Bible...keywords=tanakh&qid=1553050434&s=books&sr=1-1 TANAKH is an entirely original translation of the Holy Scriptures into contemporary English https://www.amazon.com/s?k=larry+go...universe+volume+1&i=stripbooks&ref=nb_sb_noss Taught me a lot of Bible I did not know, such as Deborah, Barak, Sisera and Jael. And it is a "history" book. I did then go back to my various translations and study up. Note my conundrum above. The Golden Press Bible I had as a child. Not the same today. I have the standard bible and a Catholic one too, somewhere. When I study something, I like to consult the various translations. Usually feel most agreeable to the first two. Oh and one "honorable mention" https://www.amazon.com/Book-Genesis...rds=crumb+bible&qid=1553051427&s=books&sr=1-2 R. Crumb's return from those great comics of the sixties & seventies and I think schizophrenia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Crumb characters that became extremely popular, including countercultural icons Fritz the Cat and Mr. Natural, and the images from his Keep on Truckin' strip. How about you? Favs?
A few comments. The split between Christianity and Judaism - while perhaps not like a bolt of lightning - happened in a rather short period of time due to the destruction of the Temple and the "fiscus Judaicus" which made Jews - persona non grata. Paul and the Church of Jerusalem (founded by the disciples) were split right from the beginning. Paul never knew Jesus and he was never part of the COJ. Paul had very little contact with the disciples and when there was contact it was not a happy union. The Church of Jerusalem disappeared for all that we know - and was pretty much gone by the end of the first century - certainly from historical record. Mark/Matt retain a Jewish character but Luke and John have a distinctly anti Jewish character. Luke is obviously for a Pauline audience and John is a hellenistic Pauline Fusion work - intended for a Pauline audience. http://www.torahresource.com/EnglishArticles/Fiscus Judaicus.pdf At some point later Christianity re-embraced the OT - while not much of a Source for Doctrine - by the fourth century it was included in the Bible.
That is too funny!! The "Unvarnished New Testament"! Do you really think that con man translated it from the original Greek? You are simply too gullible for your own good. He may have translated it from a Greek Bible that was translated from an English Bible but he sure as hell did not have access to a complete Greek manuscript written before the 8th Century.
This is a false presentation. 1. There are fragments of NT manuscripts from the first century 2. Early church fathers (like Irenaeus, 2nd century), quoted from 21 of the 27 books of the NT... extensively. 3. The canon was not compiled, 'settled', or officially recognized as a Christian consensus until the Nicean Council (4th century) but the manuscripts were all in use prior to that time. 4. The NT was primarily in Greek, though there are theories that Matthew was originally in Aramaic, and Hebrews in Hebrew. 5. Just because there are no complete compilations of a 'new testament!' canon, does not mean that the individual manuscripts did not exist. There is indisputable historical and corroborating evidence that the manuscripts in the canon of NT were in use from the first century.
There are many good English translations around.. perhaps too many! I'll list a few i find reliable and compatible with the originals: New International New American Standard King James New King James There are dozens more out there that i have referenced from time to time, and see no major conflicts. If studying a particular passage, or concept, i refer to the greek, and compare usage in other passages, to clarify the words used. It depends on the goal and desire of the reading. Casual reading? In depth study? Clarifying conflicts? Correcting misconceptions? Good English translations are abundant, and readily available. English speakers have no excuse to not have some familiarity with The Most Significant Book in human history. No man, educated or uneducated, can afford to be ignorant of the BIBLE" ~Theodore Roosevelt "The most learned, acute, and diligent student cannot, in the longest life, obtain an entire knowledge of the BIBLE. The more deeply he works the mine, the richer and more abundant he finds the ore." ~Sir Walter Scott
You are too gullible. Please use some common sense like you use in other areas of your daily life. Con men have to sell the lie because their livelihoods depend on it. So they come up with all kinds of hoaxes and frauds to support the narrative. Now think about it. A guy claims to have translated the New Testament from the original Greek. But what does he end up with? It is written in the same format as current Bibles verse for verse and chapter for chapter. How can you overlook that detail? It should show even a blind man that the guy is pulling a con. And then where is his source material, the ancient Greek manuscript that he translated? It is nowhere to be found. If it existed it would be priceless but it doesn't exist because he simply used a modern Greek language Bible (if he can read and understand Greek at all) and followed the same verse and chapter structure used in current Bible versions. Think.
..just because you do not understand how we can have reliable, historical, and accurate copies of the earliest manuscripts, does not mean nobody can. The 2 main Greek NT compilations, the Nestle-Aland text done by the German Bible Society, and The Greek New Testament done by the United Bible Societies, are the historical standards. Extant variances are noted, for the serious scholar, and comparisons can be made. I used the Nestle-Aland, in my studies, before the internet. Now, greater tools are available for studying the most minute detail of a passage.. really only useful for nerds or bible aficionados. But it is a false narrative, with NO HISTORICAL or scholarly basis, that the texts we have today are 'different!' than the originals. They are not. We have extant fragments from the first century, EXTENSIVE quotes from the second century, and all of them provide the basis for, and are the source of, our current bible. Nothing has changed.. not even the false accusations. There is an unbroken line of scholarship, historical scrutiny, archaeological discovery, and continuity for the NT bible. It is essentially identical to the one we have today, and any slight variances or even typos are noted. Christian historians and scholars took their duties very seriously, and knew they were preserving the Holy Scriptures for future generations. Nobody has changed ANYTHING, for 2 thousand years. It is distortion and false propaganda from opposing, contrary ideologies that promote these narratives. They are lies. . damned lies.
