Welcome, Guest
Username: Password: Remember me

TOPIC: Dorcas?

Dorcas? 7 months 1 day ago #125560

During family worship my parents and I read about Dorcas (Acts 9:36-43), and how she would serve her community by making clothes for widows and other poor people. That made me wonder if Dorcas was a deacon like Stephen and the others in Acts 6 who took care of giving poor people food so the apostles could preach and teach and stuff. What do you guys think?
"I truly understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation, anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him."
Acts 10:34-35
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Dorcas? 7 months 1 day ago #125575

  • Khriz Kool Katz
  • Khriz Kool Katz's Avatar
  • NOW ONLINE
  • Katz are Kool. Period.
  • Posts: 7737
  • Thank you received: 707
Unfortunately, no. Back in those days, females couldn't be any form of church leaders because in that culture, males were considered superior. Also, the deacon system was a new element, meaning that finding and appointing other people as deacons were rare. But as time went on, deacons were more of a necessity, and as a result, the methods of finding deacons grew more streamlined. But as it stood, females could not be any form of church leaders. However, it is safe to assume Dorcas was a prominent church member.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Dorcas? 7 months 1 day ago #125581

  • JoyBaker
  • JoyBaker's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Psalm 145:3
  • Posts: 2312
  • Thank you received: 233
Although she did the work of a deacon, she probably wasn’t one.

glowtxt.com/
#Talentshowcasewriter
Great is the LORD and most worthy of praise; his greatness no one can fathom.
Psalm 145:3
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Dorcas? 7 months 20 hours ago #125586

Paul mentions Phoebe as a deacon in Romans 16, when he says hi to all the Christians in Rome. Plus I asked my dad and he said that the church ordained women as deacons back then, and that some older churches still do. The Early Church was much more inclusive than people think it was.
"I truly understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation, anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him."
Acts 10:34-35
The administrator has disabled public write access.
The following user(s) said Thank You: BookwormJo, JoyBaker

Dorcas? 6 months 4 weeks ago #125606

  • Khriz Kool Katz
  • Khriz Kool Katz's Avatar
  • NOW ONLINE
  • Katz are Kool. Period.
  • Posts: 7737
  • Thank you received: 707
JoyBaker wrote:
Although she did the work of a deacon, she probably wasn’t one.
Actually, that isn't entirely accurate.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Dorcas? 6 months 4 weeks ago #125607

  • Khriz Kool Katz
  • Khriz Kool Katz's Avatar
  • NOW ONLINE
  • Katz are Kool. Period.
  • Posts: 7737
  • Thank you received: 707
God calls me friend wrote:
Paul mentions Phoebe as a deacon in Romans 16, when he says hi to all the Christians in Rome. Plus I asked my dad and he said that the church ordained women as deacons back then, and that some older churches still do. The Early Church was much more inclusive than people think it was.
Paul, in Romans 16, does not mention anyone to be a deacon. Rather, the entire chapter lists those who have worked hard in the church and commends them for their hard work. As I said before, the process of ordaining a deacon was extensive; not everyone could be a deacon, though they may have the qualifications and do similar work. Also, as was the culture, females could not be any form of church leader; however, as is stated in Romans 16, they could be prominent members in their church. And, although the early church was very inclusive, one could not just waltz in and expect to be a church leader. Again, those processes took quite some time. If everyone and anyone could become a church leader as you are implying, then the church would have prematurely collapsed due to schisms caused by mostly theological and cultural debates and opinions of the church leaders and members.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Dorcas? 6 months 4 weeks ago #125614

  • Khriz Kool Katz
  • Khriz Kool Katz's Avatar
  • NOW ONLINE
  • Katz are Kool. Period.
  • Posts: 7737
  • Thank you received: 707
God calls me friend wrote:
Paul mentions Phoebe as a deacon in Romans 16, when he says hi to all the Christians in Rome. Plus I asked my dad and he said that the church ordained women as deacons back then, and that some older churches still do. The Early Church was much more inclusive than people think it was.
I must ask, what Bible version do you use?
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Dorcas? 6 months 4 weeks ago #125617

The NRSV. I looked it up and it says a lot of scholars like to use it too because of how accurate it is and stuff
"I truly understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation, anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him."
Acts 10:34-35
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Dorcas? 6 months 4 weeks ago #125633

  • Khriz Kool Katz
  • Khriz Kool Katz's Avatar
  • NOW ONLINE
  • Katz are Kool. Period.
  • Posts: 7737
  • Thank you received: 707
God calls me friend wrote:
The NRSV. I looked it up and it says a lot of scholars like to use it too because of how accurate it is and stuff
Hmm...
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Dorcas? 6 months 4 weeks ago #125642

  • Khriz Kool Katz
  • Khriz Kool Katz's Avatar
  • NOW ONLINE
  • Katz are Kool. Period.
  • Posts: 7737
  • Thank you received: 707
Khriz Kool Katz wrote:
God calls me friend wrote:
The NRSV. I looked it up and it says a lot of scholars like to use it too because of how accurate it is and stuff
Hmm...
Heh. As I thought.
The NRSV is a flawed translation.
It has been heavily tampered with.
Last Edit: 6 months 4 weeks ago by Khriz Kool Katz.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Dorcas? 6 months 4 weeks ago #125747

  • sci_geeek
  • sci_geeek's Avatar
  • NOW ONLINE
  • #greatmindsthinkalike
  • Posts: 3222
  • Thank you received: 482
Khriz Kool Katz wrote:
Khriz Kool Katz wrote:
God calls me friend wrote:
The NRSV. I looked it up and it says a lot of scholars like to use it too because of how accurate it is and stuff
Hmm...
Heh. As I thought.
The NRSV is a flawed translation.
And what translation isn't flawed, Khriz? All of them are.
melancholic/sanguine ~ infp 4 ~ rluan

<> <> <>

old soul, free spirit, and moderate pluviophile

"what's past is prologue." - william shakespeare
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Dorcas? 6 months 4 weeks ago #125761

Khriz Kool Katz wrote:
Khriz Kool Katz wrote:
God calls me friend wrote:
The NRSV. I looked it up and it says a lot of scholars like to use it too because of how accurate it is and stuff
Hmm...
Heh. As I thought.
The NRSV is a flawed translation.
How do you know if a version is flawed or not?
IT'S AN HONEST QUESTION!
I'm not being cheeky :blink:
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Dorcas? 6 months 4 weeks ago #125770

What translation do you use? I'm always willing to switch!
"I truly understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation, anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him."
Acts 10:34-35
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Dorcas? 6 months 4 weeks ago #125805

  • Khriz Kool Katz
  • Khriz Kool Katz's Avatar
  • NOW ONLINE
  • Katz are Kool. Period.
  • Posts: 7737
  • Thank you received: 707
sci_geeek wrote:
Khriz Kool Katz wrote:
Khriz Kool Katz wrote:
God calls me friend wrote:
The NRSV. I looked it up and it says a lot of scholars like to use it too because of how accurate it is and stuff
Hmm...
Heh. As I thought.
The NRSV is a flawed translation.
And what translation isn't flawed, Khriz? All of them are.
Let me clarify; the NRSV is greatly flawed. Just like those made after the 1800s. All of the 1980s versions (NIV, NASB, NRSV, etc.) have been messed up as a result of the eclectic methods of translations adopted by major Bible-producing industries. And on top of that, those versions use Kittel's Biblia Hebraica. Kittel was a Nazi, and his son, Rudolf joined the SS forces. Also, check out Mark 16: 9-20 in those translations; spoiler alert! You won't find them because they've been taken out. Those versions have been heavily tampered with, and therefore, cannot be used as valid evidence, I'm afraid.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Dorcas? 6 months 4 weeks ago #125808

  • Khriz Kool Katz
  • Khriz Kool Katz's Avatar
  • NOW ONLINE
  • Katz are Kool. Period.
  • Posts: 7737
  • Thank you received: 707
Alyssa4Jesus wrote:
Khriz Kool Katz wrote:
Khriz Kool Katz wrote:
God calls me friend wrote:
The NRSV. I looked it up and it says a lot of scholars like to use it too because of how accurate it is and stuff
Hmm...
Heh. As I thought.
The NRSV is a flawed translation.
How do you know if a version is flawed or not?
IT'S AN HONEST QUESTION!
I'm not being cheeky :blink:
I know. If the sources of those translations are inaccurate, or if they have big inconsistencies in them that corrupt the gospel message. Older texts are better, because they retain more accuracies that newer ones don't have. The ancient texts in their original language would be greatly helpful.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Alyssa4Jesus

Dorcas? 6 months 4 weeks ago #125809

  • Khriz Kool Katz
  • Khriz Kool Katz's Avatar
  • NOW ONLINE
  • Katz are Kool. Period.
  • Posts: 7737
  • Thank you received: 707
God calls me friend wrote:
What translation do you use? I'm always willing to switch!
I mainly use KJV, but that has its problems. I recommend using several at a time, so you can extrapolate a better understanding of what you're reading.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Dorcas? 6 months 4 weeks ago #125810

  • Khriz Kool Katz
  • Khriz Kool Katz's Avatar
  • NOW ONLINE
  • Katz are Kool. Period.
  • Posts: 7737
  • Thank you received: 707
sci_geeek wrote:
Khriz Kool Katz wrote:
Khriz Kool Katz wrote:
God calls me friend wrote:
The NRSV. I looked it up and it says a lot of scholars like to use it too because of how accurate it is and stuff
Hmm...
Heh. As I thought.
The NRSV is a flawed translation.
And what translation isn't flawed, Khriz? All of them are.
They all have their inconsistencies, however, reading several at a time can potentially reduce misunderstandings.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Dorcas? 6 months 4 weeks ago #125846

  • sci_geeek
  • sci_geeek's Avatar
  • NOW ONLINE
  • #greatmindsthinkalike
  • Posts: 3222
  • Thank you received: 482
Khriz Kool Katz wrote:
sci_geeek wrote:
Khriz Kool Katz wrote:
Khriz Kool Katz wrote:
God calls me friend wrote:
The NRSV. I looked it up and it says a lot of scholars like to use it too because of how accurate it is and stuff
Hmm...
Heh. As I thought.
The NRSV is a flawed translation.
And what translation isn't flawed, Khriz? All of them are.
Let me clarify; the NRSV is greatly flawed. Just like those made after the 1800s. All of the 1980s versions (NIV, NASB, NRSV, etc.) have been messed up as a result of the eclectic methods of translations adopted by major Bible-producing industries. And on top of that, those versions use Kittel's Biblia Hebraica. Kittel was a Nazi, and his son, Rudolf joined the SS forces. Also, check out Mark 16: 9-20 in those translations; spoiler alert! You won't find them because they've been taken out. Those versions have been heavily tampered with, and therefore, cannot be used as valid evidence, I'm afraid.
I know I'm straying off the topic here, but I was reading Mark 16: 9-20, and I wonder, why do some versions exclude this passage? I honestly can't find anything in it that might make them "uncomfortable" and it's not like there's "incorrect theology," cuz this is the Bible.
melancholic/sanguine ~ infp 4 ~ rluan

<> <> <>

old soul, free spirit, and moderate pluviophile

"what's past is prologue." - william shakespeare
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Dorcas? 6 months 3 weeks ago #125880

  • Khriz Kool Katz
  • Khriz Kool Katz's Avatar
  • NOW ONLINE
  • Katz are Kool. Period.
  • Posts: 7737
  • Thank you received: 707
sci_geeek wrote:
Khriz Kool Katz wrote:
sci_geeek wrote:
Khriz Kool Katz wrote:
Khriz Kool Katz wrote:
God calls me friend wrote:
The NRSV. I looked it up and it says a lot of scholars like to use it too because of how accurate it is and stuff
Hmm...
Heh. As I thought.
The NRSV is a flawed translation.
And what translation isn't flawed, Khriz? All of them are.
Let me clarify; the NRSV is greatly flawed. Just like those made after the 1800s. All of the 1980s versions (NIV, NASB, NRSV, etc.) have been messed up as a result of the eclectic methods of translations adopted by major Bible-producing industries. And on top of that, those versions use Kittel's Biblia Hebraica. Kittel was a Nazi, and his son, Rudolf joined the SS forces. Also, check out Mark 16: 9-20 in those translations; spoiler alert! You won't find them because they've been taken out. Those versions have been heavily tampered with, and therefore, cannot be used as valid evidence, I'm afraid.
I know I'm straying off the topic here, but I was reading Mark 16: 9-20, and I wonder, why do some versions exclude this passage? I honestly can't find anything in it that might make them "uncomfortable" and it's not like there's "incorrect theology," cuz this is the Bible.
I don't know. Other verses are heavily tampered with, twisting their meaning.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Dorcas? 6 months 3 weeks ago #125889

Mark 16:9-20 doesn't exist in the oldest versions of Mark. Those verses were added later, either by Mark himself or by someone else. Newer translations like the NRSV that have access to older manuscripts than more traditional versions like the KJV include it in brackets and call it "the long ending"
"I truly understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation, anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him."
Acts 10:34-35
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Dorcas? 6 months 3 weeks ago #125890

Khriz Kool Katz wrote:
God calls me friend wrote:
Paul mentions Phoebe as a deacon in Romans 16, when he says hi to all the Christians in Rome. Plus I asked my dad and he said that the church ordained women as deacons back then, and that some older churches still do. The Early Church was much more inclusive than people think it was.
Paul, in Romans 16, does not mention anyone to be a deacon. Rather, the entire chapter lists those who have worked hard in the church and commends them for their hard work. As I said before, the process of ordaining a deacon was extensive; not everyone could be a deacon, though they may have the qualifications and do similar work. Also, as was the culture, females could not be any form of church leader; however, as is stated in Romans 16, they could be prominent members in their church. And, although the early church was very inclusive, one could not just waltz in and expect to be a church leader. Again, those processes took quite some time. If everyone and anyone could become a church leader as you are implying, then the church would have prematurely collapsed due to schisms caused by mostly theological and cultural debates and opinions of the church leaders and members.

Women were ordained as deacons until Constantine. Some churches never stopped, like the Armenian church. Plus the word Paul used for Phoebe in Greek was "deacon." Later writers were probably uncomfortable with the idea of a woman in leadership so they translated it in other ways. Dorcas also didn't just "waltz in". She was so important to her community that Peter came to heal her when she died. I think she could've been one because she was a Greek speaker like the original deacons and focused on community service, plus women served as deacons in the early church, but she's not mentioned as one so the best we can do is guess whether she was or not.
"I truly understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation, anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him."
Acts 10:34-35
The administrator has disabled public write access.
The following user(s) said Thank You: JoyBaker

Dorcas? 6 months 3 weeks ago #125891

Mark 16:9-20 wasn't taken out, it was added in later. Just because aversion is newer doesn't mean it's worse. The KJV doesn't use the Dead Sea scrolls or any older texts like the new versions do. The NRSV is more literal and that's why so many scholars like it
"I truly understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation, anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him."
Acts 10:34-35
The administrator has disabled public write access.
The following user(s) said Thank You: JoyBaker

Dorcas? 6 months 3 weeks ago #125894

  • sci_geeek
  • sci_geeek's Avatar
  • NOW ONLINE
  • #greatmindsthinkalike
  • Posts: 3222
  • Thank you received: 482
God calls me friend wrote:
Mark 16:9-20 wasn't taken out, it was added in later. Just because aversion is newer doesn't mean it's worse. The KJV doesn't use the Dead Sea scrolls or any older texts like the new versions do. The NRSV is more literal and that's why so many scholars like it
I see what you mean, but aren't the Dead Sea scrolls only Old Testament?? I might be really wrong here, so don't take my word for it, lol
melancholic/sanguine ~ infp 4 ~ rluan

<> <> <>

old soul, free spirit, and moderate pluviophile

"what's past is prologue." - william shakespeare
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Dorcas? 6 months 3 weeks ago #125899

  • Khriz Kool Katz
  • Khriz Kool Katz's Avatar
  • NOW ONLINE
  • Katz are Kool. Period.
  • Posts: 7737
  • Thank you received: 707
God calls me friend wrote:
Mark 16:9-20 doesn't exist in the oldest versions of Mark. Those verses were added later, either by Mark himself or by someone else. Newer translations like the NRSV that have access to older manuscripts than more traditional versions like the KJV include it in brackets and call it "the long ending"
So, you are justifying the subtraction of Scripture? The information you've provided is speculation. Basing anything on that would be potentially erroneous.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Dorcas? 6 months 3 weeks ago #125900

  • Khriz Kool Katz
  • Khriz Kool Katz's Avatar
  • NOW ONLINE
  • Katz are Kool. Period.
  • Posts: 7737
  • Thank you received: 707
God calls me friend wrote:
Mark 16:9-20 wasn't taken out, it was added in later. Just because aversion is newer doesn't mean it's worse. The KJV doesn't use the Dead Sea scrolls or any older texts like the new versions do. The NRSV is more literal and that's why so many scholars like it
Just because a translation uses recent discoveries doesn't exempt it from having heavy tampering in it. Those new versions reek of it, meaning that, again, they cannot be used as legitimate evidence. It's no wonder that scholars are wrong most of the time.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Time to create page: 0.297 seconds