Is the Bible Literally True? No, of Course Not!

[IBDaMann]

[Deacons] have authority and are holding an official ordained church office with real responsibility and authority.

Nope, nope and nope. Deacons are not ordained. They are selected as altar boys are selected. Yes, they get some training and are thusly given helper's responsibilities, and for that they get to wear a special getup, but they have no authority. Deacons fill the role of "additional manpower."

 

[Into the Night]

For example?

Don't play dumb, Sock.

 

[Into the Night]

You gotta love the Rightwing 'Christian' posters who never even heard of the story of Paul and Phoebe in Epistle to the Romans prior to reading my post, and then immediately appoint themselves experts on the significance of Romans 16.

Misquoting the Bible won't work, Sock.

 

[Into the Night]

Oh, but I can. I don't have to believe the Bible or Christians to know what the Bible says and the realities of Christians / Christianity.

Pivot fallacy. That won't work, Sock.

 

[Into the Night]

The New Testament wasn't written in English. It was written in Greek.

You probably didn't know that.

Your cut and paste of English translations is not authoritative.

The highly respectable Encyclopedia Britannica confirms that in the original Greek, Phoebe was called a Deacon, a benefactor, and servant of the church.

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Saint-Paul-the-Apostle/Mission

The Britannica is not the Bible, Sock. False authority fallacy. Phoebe was not a deacon.

 

[Into the Night]

"Phoebe of Cenchreae (fl. 1st c.)
Early Christian patron and leader who delivered St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans to the church at Rome c. 57 ce and is increasingly seen by scholars as having played a crucial role in creating the position of deaconess in the early church."

https://www.encyclopedia.com/women/...ranscripts-and-maps/phoebe-cenchreae-fl-1st-c

Quoting encyclopedias won't work, Sock. They are not the Bible. False authority fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

Never have I ever used Wikipedia as an informational source for the Bible.

Blatant lie.

What is, that I posted, that you disagree with or are you content to name-call 'cause you're mad?

Don't play dumb, Sock.

 

[Into the Night]

My bad. I owe you an apology. I was tracing back Cypress' chain when I came upon yours thinking it was his. That's why I posted the Cypress meme. Cypress is misquoting the Bible to be offensive.

I was rushing and not paying close attention and I screwed that up. You have my genuine apologies. I will try harder next time.

ZenMode has used Wikipedia to quote the Bible. So has Cypress. He's lying.

 

[Into the Night]

^^^ Didn't have the slightest clue who Phoebe was until after reading my posts, and then immediately appointed himself expert on Epistles to the Romans

I love how I get you to start frantically Googling topics you didn't know anything about before me

KJV is a 500 year old English translation.

Linguistics and the art of translation have dramatically improved in the last 500 years.

You don't seem to be aware of that.

And newer translations like NIV correctly identify Phoebe as a Deacon in the church, which in the first century historical context meant she was a high ranking Christian designated to work with the elders in a variety of ways.

If she was just a maidservant baking cookies for the Sunday liturgy Paul would have not trusted her to be his emissary to the Church in Rome, which was an extremely important project for Paul.

Pivot fallacy. You don't get to claim quoting a foreign language, Sock. You were quoting the English version and trying to change it. Phoebe was not a deacon.

 

[Into the Night]

Nope, nope and nope. Deacons are not ordained. They are selected as altar boys are selected. Yes, they get some training and are thusly given helper's responsibilities, and for that they get to wear a special getup, but they have no authority. Deacons fill the role of "additional manpower."

Deacons were ordained. In some churches they still are. In the Catholic church, it is no longer an ordained office.

 

[goat]

ZenMode has used Wikipedia to quote the Bible. So has Cypress. He's lying.

Like Google, Wikipedia can be used as a starting point to find articles and books to read about the topic. Mostly I can remember part of the title, plus I like to check the correct spelling on the author's name. The important part to me is I can still remember the basis of the article or book. I'm not sure how much longer that will last.

 

[ZenMode]

Don't play dumb, Sock.

Right. So, you've got nothing.

 

[ZenMode]

Pivot fallacy. That won't work, Sock.

Again..... you've got nothing.

 

[ZenMode]

Blatant lie.

Don't play dumb, Sock.

Three strikes. You're out.

Better luck next time!

 

[Yakuda]

You must not attend church or have any real knowledge of the Christian tradition.

A sargeant is in a leadership position even if they are subordinate to and have to take orders from lieutenants and captains.

I didn't say about women being THE leader, the top dog.

Deacons are frequently in charge of secular, logistical, administrative, and sometimes charitable functions of the church. They have authority and are holding an official ordained church office with real responsibility and authority.

And women lead all kinds of things in the church but they aren't leaders of the church.

 

[Cypress]

And women lead all kinds of things in the church but they aren't leaders of the church.

I never said the leader of the church.
I said a leadership position. Deacons are part of the ordained clergy, they are high ranking christians, and leadership is about more than barking orders at others.

Romans is probably the most important epistle Paul ever wrote, and obtaining the support of the Church in Rome was possibly the most important project he ever strove to undertake.

If Phoebe was just the girl who served coffee at Sunday liturgy, Paul would have never trusted her to be his emissary to Rome.

 

[Cypress]

I’ve heard of Q, but not looked into it. I know nothing about the L and M. Kinda piqued my curiosity, though.

The thing on the divinity of Christ poses a real problem for the literalists. Bethlehem, of course, was tossed in to fulfill the prophecy of the OT. No reason for people from Nazereth to be there. Of course, the claim that it was for the census and that Joseph needed to be there because he had an ancestor from there 1000 years prior is laughable. The “out of Egypt” thing, as well.

The different versions of his deification are problematic. So which was it? 1) His resurrection 2) His baptism or 3) His birth.

The two gospels you referenced may well have been written a couple decades after his death, but those original manuscripts are missing. The first available ones are what, 100-200 years or so after that? So, who knows what changes were made in the stories during that time. The question is also WHERE were those gospels written? Most probably not in Galilee, so therefore not in any direct contact with those who knew Jesus.

Still, an interesting subject.

If it were possible to find the lost Gospel of Q, it would be the archeological find of the millennium.

The fact that Jesus' relation to God isn't consistent throughout the four gospels seem to suggest evolving strands of oral traditions throughout the Levant.

The fact that the Gospels are written in Greek proves that Hellenized Jews got their hands on the early Jewish-Christian writings, and seem to have introduced Greek Platonic concepts into the story.

If I had to, I could rationally explain the resurrection. Before stethoscopes and medical technology it could be difficult to tell if someone was actually dead. A weak heartbeat would be difficult to detect. The Romans apparently left Jesus to die on the cross, but he might have just been injured and barely alive when he was taken down. If he recovered from the mortal injuries in the days and weeks that followed, his reappearance to his disciples could appear miraculous.

 

[gfm7175]

There doesn't have to be a single day. If one writer says Jesus died before the Passover meal and the other says he died after eating the Passover meal, you have claims that can't both be true.

That's not what the writers' claims are, ZenMode. See my post #133, of which you are purposely choosing not to respond to (for obvious reasons), for a detailed explanation of how your (well, Bart Ehrmann's) claims of "contradiction" are actually NOT contradictions because BOTH writers make claim to Jesus being crucified on the 14th of Nisan (which is the very same day!).

If my post #133 (and my prior post containing a chronology of events) don't contain enough detail for you explaining why your mind masters are wrong, then you're gonna have to explain to me what additional details exist that I am "overlooking" that somehow show some sort of contradiction between what day Jesus was crucified on... I've already directly refuted the repetitious claim that you are making in this post of yours (see my post #133 and the post(s) before it)

 

[IBDaMann]

Deacons were ordained. In some churches they still are. In the Catholic church, it is no longer an ordained office.

How exactly did that work? How was one "ordained" as a servant? I know that presently there are many types of deacon positions, and that as the decades pass, more and more denominations are glamorizing those positions in a constant pursuit for increased manpower, but they are always below the authority cutoff line afforded to ordained personnel. At two particular religious organizations of importance to me in my younger days, some religious (non-ordained) "brothers" wielded great authority beyond many of the ordained members. Deacons never held any authority.

I was very young when the role of "deacon" was explained to me, and I have never seen that change. Of course, any denomination is free to create any kind of deacon position it wishes and declare it to be an "ordained" position, an "elected" position, or whatever they want to do with it.

 

[ZenMode]

That's not what the writers' claims are, ZenMode. See my post #133, of which you are purposely choosing not to respond to (for obvious reasons), for a detailed explanation of how your (well, Bart Ehrmann's) claims of "contradiction" are actually NOT contradictions because BOTH writers make claim to Jesus being crucified on the 14th of Nisan (which is the very same day!).

If my post #133 (and my prior post containing a chronology of events) don't contain enough detail for you explaining why your mind masters are wrong, then you're gonna have to explain to me what additional details exist that I am "overlooking" that somehow show some sort of contradiction between what day Jesus was crucified on... I've already directly refuted the repetitious claim that you are making in this post of yours (see my post #133 and the post(s) before it)

There is nothing being overlooked. It comes down to different interpretations of what is written. Again, hundreds of millions of people read the Bible and hundreds of millions of people can read the same passage and have a different understanding of what that passage means or says. You have your opinion/understanding and others have theirs, but do not think that you have the "right" understanding.

As I said a few posts ago, we are not going to agree. There is too much left up to interpretation.