Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Catholic Church claims it is above the law

1…3940424445…48

Comments

  • #1232
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    I clipped out the "it is better to", which does not change the meaning.

    You clipped out the clear mention of hell as well.
    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    Nope. I would read it as "stumbling" in terms of committing a sin. You actually alluded to this yourself in your next sentence.

    The passage very clearly starts saying that anyone who causes anyone to stumble that it would be good for them if they had a millstone put around their neck and put into the sea.
    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    So basically, if you "sin with your hand" - let's say steal - then you'd be better off cutting off that hand.

    I agree. Anything that would cause you to stumble in your faith. Sin is an impediment between man and God. The first line refers to others who would cause others to stumble in their faith, the rest of the passage looks into how people stumble in their faith as individuals (through sin). At the end Jesus re-emphasises using the salt analogy as to how faith is crucially important in peoples lives.
    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    So if a priest sins with his dick, Jesus' stance is that they should lose that or else they won't get into heaven.

    Of course, but to say that the passage is solely concerning to the abuse of children just because it mentions children is neglecting the context of the passage.


  • #1233
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    philologos wrote: »
    Of course, but to say that the passage is solely concerning to the abuse of children just because it mentions children is neglecting the context of the passage.

    I never said that it was "solely concerning" the abuse of children.

    In fact, I explicitly gave an example of "sinning with your hand" being stealing.

    So please don't put words in my mouth.


  • #1234
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 758 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    The fact that a discussion on the systematic cover-up of child rape by the world's biggest cult has degenerated into a heated debate over the misinformed delusions of bronze-age desert people is baffling to me.


  • #1235
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    housetypeb wrote: »
    I have read it-which is more than i can say about a lot of my catholic friends.

    sure ye did :rolleyes:


  • #1236
    Zebra3
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,136 ✭✭✭✭Zebra3


    Min wrote: »
    Matthew 16 17-20
    17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter,URL="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+16&version=NIV;KJV#fen-NIV-23691b"]b[/URL and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of HadesURL="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+16&version=NIV;KJV#fen-NIV-23691c"]c[/URL will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will beURL="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+16&version=NIV;KJV#fen-NIV-23692d"]d[/URL bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will beURL="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+16&version=NIV;KJV#fen-NIV-23692e"]e[/URL loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah

    The first leader/ pope of the church is Peter. All the other Pope's are successor's of Peter.
    As successor of Peter, the Pope of the day can make the rules once they don't contradict the bible.

    If the church was to have drowned Brendan Smith then someone would be in jail for murder, though with the Irish state you wouldn't be so sure.
    Though the church argues in cases of the death penalty that it was needed in the past when dangerous people could escape from prison, that nowadays prisons have the security to keep people locked up.

    And who is "Matthew"?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew

    Did he even meet Jaysus? :confused:

    Sounds like a load purplemonkeydishwasher shyte to me. :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • #1237
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    getz wrote: »
    peter was never in rome ,not once in the bible is it mentioned thet he was,and he had no reason to be,because he was the apostle to the circumcised,[the jews] he never wanted to have anything to do with gentiles,he even refused to eat with gentiles,paul was apostle to the gentiles,paul was the one in rome,in one of his letters he says,[in 65 AD] paul says only luke is with me,

    There is considerable debate as to whether or not Peter was in Rome - however many Roman Catholic and Protestant scholars do conclude that Peter was probably in Rome.

    In addition, Tertullian, Ignatius of Antioch and Irenaeus all writing in the first century refer to Peter (and Paul) being in Rome.
    In the third and fourth centuries there are numerous texts referring to Peter being in Rome also.


  • #1238
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    Zebra3 wrote: »
    And who is "Matthew"?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew

    Did he even meet Jaysus? :confused:

    Sounds like a load purplemonkeydishwasher shyte to me. :rolleyes:

    Not that you're interested.

    The Bible clearly states that Jesus met Matthew (the tax collector) and said "Come with me"

    9As Jesus was leaving, he saw a tax collector [a] named Matthew sitting at the place for paying taxes. Jesus said to him, "Come with me." Matthew got up and went with him. 10Later, Jesus and his disciples were having dinner at Matthew's house. Many tax collectors and other sinners were also there. 11Some Pharisees asked Jesus' disciples, "Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and other sinners?"


  • #1239
    Zebra3
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,136 ✭✭✭✭Zebra3


    hinault wrote: »
    Not that you're interested.

    The Bible clearly states that Jesus met Matthew (the tax collector) and said "Come with me"

    9As Jesus was leaving, he saw a tax collector [a] named Matthew sitting at the place for paying taxes. Jesus said to him, "Come with me." Matthew got up and went with him. 10Later, Jesus and his disciples were having dinner at Matthew's house. Many tax collectors and other sinners were also there. 11Some Pharisees asked Jesus' disciples, "Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and other sinners?"

    Oh, I'm very interested.

    But you haven't given one iota of evidence that the Matthew bloke you're yarning about is actually the same punter who wrote the stories about Jaysus which he mainly based on someone else's ramblings.

    Pure purplemonkeydishwasher syndrome. :rolleyes:


  • #1240
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,367 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    philologos wrote: »
    Find it as funny as you desire, my point is that if one is going to use / criticise the Biblical text it should be done so in good consideration of the context of what is actually being said. Fair enough right?

    The context of the WHOLE THING is funny given it is based on the entirely unsubstantiated claim that there exists an invisible man in the sky. A unsubstantiated claim that whenever you are asked to defend you run for the hills and do not reply because you know as well as the rest of us how comical and baseless your own claims actually are.
    philologos wrote: »
    I guess what I find most bemusing about many Biblical critics on boards.ie is that in many cases they criticise the Bible without having had any meaningful contact with it. What book critic would get away with criticising a book before they've read it?

    Not only have I had much exposure with it but I am part of the "Read the Bible Campaign" from Atheist Ireland which encourages more people to read it. So belittle the people who have not read it all you like, but the fact is you run away from people who have read it and people who have not read it just as fast and just as regularly.
    philologos wrote: »
    Let me know when you're willing to respond effectively to the actual point being made :)

    Hah, says the guy who runs away the fastest from any points actually made. Of all the people on boards this is one accusation you have NO basis to be throwing at others. YOU should let US know when you are willing to respond to... well.... anything.


  • #1241
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    I've told nozzferrahhtoo precisely why I won't be responding to his posts. After repeated false accusations that he made that I was lying I decided not to respond to any of his posts. I can take any form of insult being thrown at me other than a false attack on my sincerity. He's one of three people on my ignore list on boards.ie. In the event that he can demonstrate to me that he will act in a honourable manner he will be removed from my ignore list.


  • Advertisement
  • #1242
    optogirl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,047 ✭✭✭optogirl


    hinault wrote: »
    The Bible clearly states that Jesus met Matthew (the tax collector) and said "Come with me"


    The bible doesn't clearly state anything. It has been transcribed and interepreted and translated beyond anything that would be admissable as evidence for anything.


  • #1243
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    optogirl wrote: »
    The bible doesn't clearly state anything. It has been transcribed and interepreted and translated beyond anything that would be admissable as evidence for anything.

    This is nonsense I'm afraid.

    Most modern English Bibles are translated directly from the Hebrew, Aramaic (Old Testament) and Koine Greek manuscripts (New Testament) that we have.

    Given the vast number of manuscripts we have 40,000 it would be nigh on impossible to have introduced considerable change into the manuscripts without being caught red-handed. It's as simple as comparing one manuscript with the 39,999 others and to compare for differences.

    The argument from authenticity falls flat, because the New Testament is actually the most authentic ancient text in the world in comparison to others such as Plato, and Aristotle.


  • #1244
    Knight who says Meh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 464 ✭✭Knight who says Meh


    Hmmmm. So why is there a need for bibnlical scholars?
    And how about this from the KJB Wiki page:
    James gave the translators instructions intended to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its beliefs about an ordained clergy.[9] The translation was by 47 scholars, all of whom were members of the Church of England.[10] In common with most other translations of the period, the New Testament was translated from Greek, the Old Testament was translated from Hebrew text, while the Apocrypha were translated from the Greek and Latin.

    You know. I just put in a google search for edits and translations and found dozens of sites. Mostly sites with evidence of such and many from independent studys with no apparent axe to grind. Of course there are those claiming the same as you but as usual they are Christians Science (:rolleyes:) studies. Think Iona institute and the like. I suspect a vested interest.;)


  • #1245
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,367 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    philologos wrote: »
    I've told nozzferrahhtoo precisely why I won't be responding to his posts.

    Actually what you told me was that you were putting me on ignore. I guess I can add this to the ever growing list of things that you claimed but later turned out not to be true huh given you just replied to a post I just made.

    The fact is you run away from my posts because the questions in them are too much for you. Like this one. However what ever the reason the point stands that you are in no position to accuse others on this site of not dealing with points.

    Also each time I accused you of lying it was not off the cuff pointless rhetoric. I can back each accusation up with quotes, back up and evidence should anyone ask me to. Pick one and link to it and I will inform you happily of my back up.
    philologos wrote: »
    He's one of three people on my ignore list

    Well given you just replied to me, and you knew what the content of my post was, you are either lying (again) or your ignore list is not working. If the latter I am sure the administrators of the site should be informed of the problem and would only be too happy to repair it.


  • #1246
    optogirl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,047 ✭✭✭optogirl


    philologos wrote: »
    This is nonsense I'm afraid.



    The argument from authenticity falls flat, because the New Testament is actually the most authentic ancient text in the world in comparison to others such as Plato, and Aristotle.


    As authentic as any book - absolutley no proof that what is written is true.


  • #1247
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Knight who says Meh wrote: »
    Hmmmm. So why is there a need for bibnlical scholars?

    Why do you think there is? - Biblical scholars are primarily responsible with looking into the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts in the interest of producing accurate translations. Although it largely depends on the field. Linguists are currently translating the Bible into the last 2,000 or so languages which are unreached by the Bible with contact with local communities. That's radically different work to trying to produce an English Bible which has been done very often.
    Knight who says Meh wrote: »
    And how about this from the KJB Wiki page:
    James gave the translators instructions intended to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its beliefs about an ordained clergy.[9] The translation was by 47 scholars, all of whom were members of the Church of England.[10] In common with most other translations of the period, the New Testament was translated from Greek, the Old Testament was translated from Hebrew text, while the Apocrypha were translated from the Greek and Latin.

    The King James Version was translated from the manuscripts that were available at that particular time when it was written (I.E in 1611). There have been significant finds in the last 400 years however, and with the change in the English language in those years it's also obvious why one would need to update the language that it is written in so that it is understood. This does not mean that one is changing the meaning and indeed the original manuscripts from which it is translated remain the same. If one is in doubt about a word in the Biblical text, they can look up the passage in a concordance such as Strongs which will give all the renderings of that word in the Bible for a deeper understanding.

    In other words, I distinguish a translation which of course can be erroneous to the Greek and Hebrew / Aramaic manuscripts which contain the original words used in bringing God's word to us.
    Knight who says Meh wrote: »
    You know. I just put in a google search for edits and translations and found dozens of sites. Mostly sites with evidence of such and many from independent studys with no apparent axe to grind. Of course there are those claiming the same as you but as usual they are Christians Science (:rolleyes:) studies. Think Iona institute and the like. I suspect a vested interest.;)

    And you trust Google without any attempt of verifying what you're reading? Interesting.

    This is what I'm basing my conclusion on:
    The Verdict. What can we conclude from this evidence? Professor Daniel Wallace notes that although there are about 300,000 individual variations of the New Testament text in the manuscripts, this number is very misleading. Most of the differences are completely inconsequential — spelling errors, inverted phrases, and the like. Of the remaining differences, virtually all can be sorted out using vigorous textual criticism. In the entire 20,000 lines of text, only 40 lines are in doubt (about 400 words), and none affects any significant doctrine. This means that the Greek text from which we derive our New Testament translations is 99.5 percent pure.

    Using these facts, the point to press home with the skeptic is this: If we reject the authenticity of the New Testament on textual grounds, we’d also have to reject every work of antiquity prior to AD 1000, since there is less manuscript evidence for their authenticity than for the New Testament.

    Has the New Testament been changed? Critical, academic analysis says it has not.

    I don't deny that I have a vested interest. I have a vested interest to defend Christianity. I have no more a vested interest than you or optogirl in terms of undermining it.


  • #1248
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    optogirl wrote:
    As authentic as any book - absolutley no proof that what is written is true.

    That wasn't your original claim. Your original claim was:
    optogirl wrote: »
    The bible doesn't clearly state anything. It has been transcribed and interepreted and translated beyond anything that would be admissable as evidence for anything.

    This isn't true on looking to what we know. The Biblical text is more admissible on those grounds than any text before 1000AD.

    As for proof - I don't deny that there isn't proof. Proof lies in mathematics. We can't prove the vast majority of all things. Simply put all we can do is look to reality and see how reasonable it is for X or Y to occur. If it isn't reasonable to us it is natural that we won't believe in it. If it is reasonable it is likely we will.


  • #1249
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 758 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    philologos wrote: »
    The Biblical text is more admissible on those grounds than any text before 1000AD.

    The Bible claims supernatural events occurred. Therefore, its reliability is innately suspect.


  • #1250
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    philologos wrote: »
    I don't deny that I have a vested interest. I have a vested interest to defend Christianity. I have no more a vested interest than you or optogirl in terms of undermining it.

    We're not talking about Christianity in this thread, we're talking about the catholic church.

    Quotations from the bible were in an effort to expose the notion that the catholic church was based solely on the teachings of Jesus; it's not. Some of the teachings are there, but the remainder are tagged on for no reason, and some are changed on a whim.

    And all this to-ing and fro-ing is taking from the debate as to whether it believes it is above the law, and whether it should be.


  • #1251
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Deleted User wrote: »
    The Bible claims supernatural events occurred. Therefore, its reliability is innately suspect.

    What was posted originally by optogirl was that the Bible was corrupted in its textual form from the original. This isn't ultimately true of its textual form.

    As for whether or not you personally think that the Bible in its original form is telling the truth. That's another question.

    Liam Byrne: If people are posting misconceptions about the Biblical text they are no longer posting about the RCC as an institution as Christians in general hold to the Biblical text. It's unfortunate that people are using this thread as an opportunity to promote atheism rather than actually just talking about the institutional corruption in the RCC.


  • Advertisement
  • #1252
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,367 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    philologos wrote: »
    I don't deny that I have a vested interest. I have a vested interest to defend Christianity.

    A shame then that you do it so poorly. In fact half the reason I keep you talking when I can is because I think you do the cause more harm than good and I find utility in that.


  • #1253
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    philologos wrote:
    It's unfortunate that people are using this thread as an opportunity to promote atheism rather than actually just talking about the institutional corruption in the RCC.

    Agreed. But not everyone misquoting and throwing in red herrings were on the anti-church side; the simplest of questions to Min resulted in pages of irrelevant and off-topic bible text being spewed out in a reply.

    Apparently very few want to discuss the actual topic.


  • #1254
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    optogirl wrote: »
    Are you seriously of the opinion that there has been no manipulation or editing of the bible and that 2000 years of translations are accurate?

    Accuracy is dependant on the amount of manuscripts. In the 21st century we are in a better position to translate the Bible than ever before. Why is that? Precisely because we have more manuscripts to use, we have better technology to use, we have better knowledge of ancient languages than we've ever had before.

    Biblical scholarship suggests that in the whole New Testament that we have today 40 lines of 20,000 are in doubt, of those passages that are in doubt most are repetitions of other more authentic passages found elsewhere. As for the Old Testament, thanks to the Jewish tradition of writing and keeping a Torah scroll in every synagogue we have more copies of the Tanakh than we could ever ask for going back into antiquity and going into the present.
    optogirl wrote: »
    The Catholic bishops of England, Scotland & Wales themselves have warned about taking biblical text literally in The Gift of the Scripture:

    '“We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision,”

    They also endorse the sexing up of the bible.     They say the Church must offer the gospel in ways “appropriate to changing times, intelligible and attractive to our contemporaries”.

    This has nothing to do with whether or not the Bible has been changed. I'm not a member of the RCC but it seems that they are saying that the Bible isn't a science book. Indeed, it isn't, it is far more than a science book. I don't believe all the Bible is history, parts of it do document history but others don't.
    optogirl wrote: »
    As examples of passages not to be taken literally, the bishops cite the early chapters of Genesis, comparing them with early creation legends from other cultures, especially from the ancient East. The bishops say it is clear that the primary purpose of these chapters was to provide religious teaching and that they could not be described as historical writing.
    Similarly, they refute the apocalyptic prophecies of Revelation.

    I don't see how you've concluded that from what I've said thus far. What I've said thus far is that the Bible hasn't been corrupted or changed. As for the Bible containing allegory, does it? Absolutely. I believe that the Bible contains truth for all mankind, but truth can be found in allegory. For example, even the most ardent Biblical literalist, let's call him Bill and let's say he lives in the Bible Belt. No doubt I will agree with him that Jesus' parables weren't about agriculture, but about ones faith in Him, and about His Kingdom. Simply put no Christian believes that the Bible is entirely literal, because it simply isn't and we can know this from employing the same reading comprehension that we would use in reading in general.

    As for this being an argument against Christianity, I don't see exactly how it is.
    optogirl wrote: »
    The bishops say: “Such symbolic language must be respected for what it is, and is not to be interpreted literally. We should not expect to discover in this book details about the end of the world, about how many will be saved and about when the end will come.”

    Not all the Bible is symbolism, but elements of it are. I think this largely may be a result of a difference between how Roman Catholics / Orthodox and Reformed / Protestants view the Bible. The RCC / Orthodox maintain that they are the sole authority for interpretation. Reformed would hold that the Bible should be read and understood by individuals. I guess I fall into the latter camp.

    I emphasise that people should read the Bible for themselves before criticising it so that they can be intimately aware of what they are discussing first. That's a fair request isn't it?


  • #1255
    optogirl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,047 ✭✭✭optogirl


    philologos wrote: »
    A


    parts of it do document history but others don't.

    Simply put no Christian believes that the Bible is entirely literal, because it simply isn't and we can know this from employing the same reading comprehension that we would use in reading in general.


    Not all the Bible is symbolism, but elements of it are.
    I emphasise that people should read the Bible for themselves before criticising it so that they can be intimately aware of what they are discussing first. That's a fair request isn't it?

    I have read a great deal of the bible and was infact forced to study 4 of the gospels at school in detail. Not to mention that I attended mass for 17 years every week. I deleted my original post as it's off topic however I have to respond to ask just whose interpretaion of what is fact and what isn't are we supposed to accept? Our own? Handy.


  • #1256
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    optogirl wrote: »
    I have read a great deal of the bible and was infact forced to study 4 of the gospels at school in detail. Not to mention that I attended mass for 17 years every week. I deleted my original post as it's off topic however I have to respond to ask just whose interpretaion of what is fact and what isn't are we supposed to accept? Our own? Handy.

    I'm just saying that if one was to do a book review - one should have an intimate knowledge of said book before reviewing it or giving it an awful rating.

    As for interpretation - where I would lie on it is that essentially Christianity is about a personal relationship between man and God. Ultimately all people need to work out where they stand with Him. The Bible as God's revelation to mankind gives people the means to come to know Him if they really want to. If they don't then of course the Bible will be of no use to them. Ultimately at the end of time I believe that God will hold us to account, but even if He didn't it would be in our best interest to come to know Him as our Creator.

    Ultimately we will believe what we find as being most reasonable. Personally I find God's existence more reasonable than non-existence.

    This has absolutely no relevance to discussing the institutional problems in the RCC though.


  • #1257
    Knight who says Meh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 464 ✭✭Knight who says Meh


    James gave the translators instructions intended to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its beliefs about an ordained clergy.[9]

    So this does not count as intentionl spin put on the bible for religious/ political reasons then????:confused:


    Plus it is disingenuous to say that I am posting with an agenda. I am posting with a conclusion arrived at over a very long and protracted period as a former devout catholic who used to read the bible cover to cover on rotation and attended Sunday schools of my own free will.


  • #1258
    Knight who says Meh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 464 ✭✭Knight who says Meh


    philologos wrote: »
    I'm just saying that if one was to do a book review - one should have an intimate knowledge of said book before reviewing it or giving it an awful rating.

    As for interpretation - where I would lie on it is that essentially Christianity is about a personal relationship between man and God. Ultimately all people need to work out where they stand with Him. The Bible as God's revelation to mankind gives people the means to come to know Him if they really want to. If they don't then of course the Bible will be of no use to them. Ultimately at the end of time I believe that God will hold us to account, but even if He didn't it would be in our best interest to come to know Him as our Creator.

    Ultimately we will believe what we find as being most reasonable. Personally I find God's existence more reasonable than non-existence.

    This has absolutely no relevance to discussing the institutional problems in the RCC though.
    Nope. It gave one tribe with one language the means. The rest of us require biblical scholars and translations.


  • #1259
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Knight who says Meh wrote: »
    James gave the translators instructions intended to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its beliefs about an ordained clergy.[9]

    So this does not count as intentional spin put on the bible for religious/ political reasons then????:confused:

    It emphasises that translations aren't infallible, and that politics and religion don't mix. Essentially the emphasis is in terms of using bishop and deacon in 1 Timothy rather than overseer and deacon. Essentially there isn't much difference in its rendering. A bishop in the CofE would have served much the same role as an overseer in the churches that Paul set up:

    Here's a modern translation the New International Version (NIV) on 1 Timothy 3:1-4
    Here is a trustworthy saying: Whoever aspires to be an overseer desires a noble task. 2 Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him, and he must do so in a manner worthy of fullURL="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%203&version=NIV#fen-NIV-29736a"]a[/URL respect.
    Here's the King James Version 1611 on the same passage:
    3:1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

    3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

    3:3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;

    3:4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
    Very little difference.
    Knight who says Meh wrote: »
    Plus it is disingenuous to say that I am posting with an agenda. I am posting with a conclusion arrived at over a very long and protracted period as a former devout catholic who used to read the bible cover to cover on rotation and attended Sunday schools of my own free will.

    I don't feel it is any less disingenuous than saying I'm posting with an agenda.
    Knight who says Meh wrote: »
    Nope. It gave one tribe with one language the means. The rest of us require biblical scholars and translations.

    And if we doubt what they give to us, we can look into the Greek and Hebrew for ourselves. I'm not even proficient in Ancient Hebrew, or Koine Greek, yet I can still look deeper into translations using a concordance.


  • #1260
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    optogirl wrote: »
    The bible doesn't clearly state anything. It has been transcribed and interepreted and translated beyond anything that would be admissable as evidence for anything.

    Matthew 9:9 clearly states that Jesus met Matthew on my copy of the The New American Bible page 1021.


  • Advertisement
  • #1261
    Min
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,550 ✭✭✭Min


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    Agreed. But not everyone misquoting and throwing in red herrings were on the anti-church side; the simplest of questions to Min resulted in pages of irrelevant and off-topic bible text being spewed out in a reply.

    Apparently very few want to discuss the actual topic.

    I think you will find that is not a correct summary. There is not pages of off topic bible text and it was relevant to what you yourself asked.
    Remember it was you who brought it back up with your false claims remark.

    So you wanted to divert away too from the actual topic.


Advertisement