Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spamandham · 05-05-2009, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Despite the writings of the Dutch Radicals, which support scenario B, it is based on speculation, rather than fact.

Their position is based on analysis, which is a type of evidence. All positions have speculative undertones, because none of the evidence is strong enough to be considered 'fact'.

Lilyofthevalley · 05-07-2009, 05:45 PM

Quote:

their wives [b] are to be women worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything.
12A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well. 13Those who have served well gain an excellent standing and great assurance in their faith in Christ Jesus.

[a] Traditionally bishop
[b] Or way, deaconesses

By the way, in the Greek original, the word translated 'their' as in 'their wives' is not present. It has been introduced into English translations.

Also the word translated 'deaconess' means 'female deacon/minister' (a high-status position) or 'female servant'.

So not only should the English text not say 'their wives', it should also not say 'their deaconesses'.

The English should simply say 'deaconesses'.

What were the translators of the Bible thinking? Didn't they know their Greek?!

Newton's Cat · 05-07-2009, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huon;5919271[FONT="Courier New"

[/FONT]Luke 4, 38-39 :
4:38 And he rose up from the synagogue, and entered into the house of Simon. And Simon’s wife’s mother was holden with a great fever; and they besought him for her. 4:39 And he stood over her, and rebuked the fever; and it left her: and immediately she rose up and ministered unto them.

Here, Simon is Peter. He has a wife.

Mark 1, 29-31

And immediately going forth out of the synagogue they came into the house OF HIM. Now the mother-in-law of HIM. was laid aside fever-stricken and immediately they tell him about her. And approaching her he raised her, holding her hand, and the fever left her and she served them.

The first OF HIM was later altered to OF SIMON AND ANDREW (with James and John was probably added at an even later date). The second OF HIM was likewise altered to OF SIMON.

The house that they entered was Jesus' own house ... in the original story Jesus was married.

Simon and Andrew, and indeed ALL the apostles apart from James and John, were NOT in the original text. At least half the text of Mark as we have it today is the result of a deliberate and calculated alteration of the original storyline. The original text was a PLAY ... probably written by a prominent and well-known contemporary playwright.

Hence the scene at the beginning ... which depicts a scenario in which a HUGE gathering of people (ALL the people of Jerusalem and ALL the people of Judaea) flocking out to John the Baptist and being "converted".

The author obviously did not intend his audience to believe that he was describing an actual event.

The main character, Jesus, was an invention of the author.

Even the crucifixion scene is not as it was in the original ... it was NOT Jesus who was crucified!

spamandham · 05-08-2009, 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Newton's Cat

Even the crucifixion scene is not as it was in the original ... it was NOT Jesus who was crucified!

...and interesting speculation, but what is it based on?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.