Women in positions of leadership in Church; ie Pastors and Priests - Page 2

[Shami]

Originally Posted by la mamita 

Somewhat OT to the original question, but I started getting interested in what my Church says about women after reading this:

In principle, the females are the weaker vessel and easily deceived due to our genetic makeup. I know this is an unpopular view, but it came from the Bible, so I don't know how to get around that issue.

My jaw kind of dropped when I read this and I went off to go make sure the Catholic Church didn't interpret things like this...
here's what I found:

The Catholic view is that men and women are equal in the sight of God. In marriage, each is to sacrifice himself or herself for the other. They are to build a family together through cooperation with each other and mutual respect.
...
Where there is an absolute difference in the roles the two sexes can play is in the giving of life. By natural law, only women can give physical life by serving as mothers. By supernatural law, only men can give spiritual life to the faithful by serving as priests. Women have the privilege of being intimately associated in the giving of life through birth, and men have the privilege of being intimately associated in the giving of life through the priesthood.

From: http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9806qq.asp

And another article titled "Does the Catholic Church Hate Women?" talks about the interpretation of Biblical passages which seem to promote patriarchy.

1 Peter 3:7

7 ^aHusbands, in like manner dwell together with them ¹according to knowledge, as with the ²weaker, female ³vessel, ⁴assigning ^bhonor to them as also to ^cfellow heirs of the ⁵grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered.

Here is the verse that says that the female is the weaker vessel, but that husbands should assign honor to them.  It is not a negative thing, it's just the fact.  You have to go back and read the context of the verse.  It has to do with the headship of Christ and the husband to the wife.  It's God's governmental arrangement and it is not popular, but still it is there.  What does patriarchy have to do with it?  This is not the same as patriarchy.

[la mamita]

again, Catholics don't read the Bible literally, so the fact that that "weaker female vessel" phrase existed in the Bible doesn't mean I have to apply it to every part of my life as a woman. If I was going to interpret that literally, I might just read it as 'women are physically weaker than men' which is a generically true statement. In the sense of not taking the Bible literally, we might be just talking past each other. It might be helpful to hear more from other Protestant denominations on this issue as far as how they intepret the passages if they also take them literally.

From the link I posted about Does the Catholic Church Hate Women on how to interpret Scriptural passages which appear to be misogynistic or patriarchal:

But what should be made of subordination passages in Scripture, such as "Let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands" (Eph. 5:24)? This appears to contradict the idea that Christianity views the sexes as equal. Pope John Paul II’s answer was:

The author knows that this way of speaking, so profoundly rooted in the customs and religious traditions of the time, is to be understood and carried out in a new way: as a "mutual subjection out of reverence for Christ" (Mulieris Dignitatem 24; cf. Eph. 5:21).

Discussing the bond of marriage as it exists after the taint of original sin, John Paul states:

The matrimonial union requires respect for and perfection of the true personal subjectivity of both of them. The woman cannot be made the object of dominion and male possession (MD 10).

That husband and wife are to be subject to one another is reinforced in the next verse of the original passage cited: "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her" (Eph. 5:25). This injunction transforms the potentially selfish orientation of male love into a form of intense self-sacrificial service. Subordination is mutual, but the admonition is given to husbands, perhaps because they need it more. What is implied, then, is not general female inferiority but general female superiority in the order that most matters eschatologically—the order of charity.

Again, I can only speak (and not even definitively) on my own denomination, which is Catholicism. But JPII was a great pope and I like his take on things

[Shami]

Originally Posted by la mamita 

again, Catholics don't read the Bible literally, so the fact that that "weaker female vessel" phrase existed in the Bible doesn't mean I have to apply it to every part of my life as a woman. If I was going to interpret that literally, I might just read it as 'women are physically weaker than men' which is a generically true statement. In the sense of not taking the Bible literally, we might be just talking past each other. It might be helpful to hear more from other Protestant denominations on this issue as far as how they intepret the passages if they also take them literally.

From the link I posted about Does the Catholic Church Hate Women on how to interpret Scriptural passages which appear to be misogynistic or patriarchal:

But what should be made of subordination passages in Scripture, such as "Let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands" (Eph. 5:24)? This appears to contradict the idea that Christianity views the sexes as equal. Pope John Paul II’s answer was:

The author knows that this way of speaking, so profoundly rooted in the customs and religious traditions of the time, is to be understood and carried out in a new way: as a "mutual subjection out of reverence for Christ" (Mulieris Dignitatem 24; cf. Eph. 5:21).

Discussing the bond of marriage as it exists after the taint of original sin, John Paul states:

The matrimonial union requires respect for and perfection of the true personal subjectivity of both of them. The woman cannot be made the object of dominion and male possession (MD 10).

That husband and wife are to be subject to one another is reinforced in the next verse of the original passage cited: "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her" (Eph. 5:25). This injunction transforms the potentially selfish orientation of male love into a form of intense self-sacrificial service. Subordination is mutual, but the admonition is given to husbands, perhaps because they need it more. What is implied, then, is not general female inferiority but general female superiority in the order that most matters eschatologically—the order of charity.

Again, I can only speak (and not even definitively) on my own denomination, which is Catholicism. But JPII was a great pope and I like his take on things

All of the above quoted passages I agree with because they are founded on the scripture.  The Bible charges husbands/wives to have mutual subjection to their spouses.  Husbands love  to the extent of self sacrifice. Amen.   

I don't get the 'we don't interpret the Bible literally.'   You just did.

If you read the context of the the verse I gave about the weaker vessel, it has nothing to do with physical strength.  I get you were trying to make a point and not really interpreting it that way.  Now I am making a point.  The context means everything.  The context within the passage, context within the particular book/epistle, and the context within the entire New Testament, and finally the context of it within the entire Bible is how verses should be interpreted.  Oh and of course, with a discernment, wisdom and revelation, led by the Holy Spirit and balanced with the body of Christ.  Maybe I am leaving something out, but that's all I can think of for now.

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by lilyka 

I read a book once that suggested that when  Paul wrote those verses that he may not have meant forever but for the time being.  The women in that location were uneducated and were just now being put into a position where they were allowed to worship alongside the men and participate fully in worship.  They needed to take time to learn and grow at this moment.

However, I do not think those verses were meant to be applied to the priesthood.  Priests serving in the church are a different role than the protestant pastor.  God has been clear from the beginning of time (old testament) that priests were to be men.  and his disciples, who became the first church leaders and bishops were men.  I do not see anything in scripture or church history or tradition that indicates anything has ever changed.  

On another note:  I have a question for people, especially those who feel women should not be in different rooles than men.  How do you feel about pagan groups who have specific roles for men and women in their worship?  What about those groups which are led by women only?  Is this different than the idea of an all-male priesthood?  I'd love to hear from any pagans on the question too.

[Shami]

Trigger said:

"A perfect example of how Paul's teaching was very different from Christ's.  Paul set out to create a "church", structured and orderly, with specific rules and regulations.

Many theologians today acknowledge that Christ's intention was not to form a structured church; rather, more likely, to bring us into a closer/better/more intimate RENEWED relationship with Our Loving Father and with each other in communion (community) with one another."

Jesus died and resurrected and another Comforter came, whom we understand to be the Holy Spirit.  Now the Lord is the Spirit.  The Father, Son and Spirit are all one.  In Acts, the Spirit led them out two by two to spread the gospel and establish churches in every city.  How could Jesus be against this if it was Spirit led?

Acts 14:23

23 And when they had appointed ^1aelders for them ²in every ^bchurch and had prayed with ^cfastings, they ^dcommitted them to the Lord into whom they had believed. 

This (Acts) was written by Luke, not Paul.  If you don't believe in setting up local churches, then Luke is off too.  And, if you don't think Jesus wanted a structured church then why are you in the RCC?  You should come join me!  LOL  Hope you take that well, just trying to lighten up a bit. But still, I'd love for you to come join me.

Titus

5 For this cause I left you in ^aCrete, that you might set in order the things which I have begun that remain and appoint ^belders in ^1cevery city, as I ^ddirected you:

[Trigger]

Originally Posted by Shami 

Trigger,

I am really at a loss for how to converse with you because you don't believe what the Bible says.   

I believe the messages of Scripture, but I also know that as our culture and knowledge have evolved, we continue to discover - as I stated before - the nuances of the message that have been mistranslated, misinterpreted, and so on.

I suspect that you reject ALL scientific evolution; however, the Catholic Church has conceded that evolution likely played a part in creation.

Remember Galileo?  We imprisoned him as a heretic for concluding that the Earth is not the center of the universe, as the Church once believed and taught.

In any case, nobody is forcing you to converse with me, nor am I trying to "convert" you.  I'm debating, which is what this forum is for.

 Paul wrote 14 of the books in the Bible.  If you don't believe in what he wrote then how can we even converse about it?

I can quote a lot of verses, but many will be from Paul's writings, which you have doubts about.

Are you aware that prominent Christian theologians now dispute this (specifically, Ephesians, Colossians, 2nd Thessalonians, 1st & 2nd Timothy, and Titus)?  Hebrews is generally considered an anonymous  letter, and only attributed to Paul by some.  Only seven letters are not disputed, and universally accepted as Pauline writings: Romans, 1st & 2nd Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1st Thessalonians, and Philemon.

Timothy 1 & 2 and Titus are now considered by most Scripture scholars to be works falsely attributed to Paul by another author.

Originally Posted by Shami 

1 Peter 3:7

7 ^aHusbands, in like manner dwell together with them ¹according to knowledge, as with the ²weaker, female ³vessel, ⁴assigning ^bhonor to them as also to ^cfellow heirs of the ⁵grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered.

Here is the verse that says that the female is the weaker vessel, but that husbands should assign honor to them.  It is not a negative thing, it's just the fact.  You have to go back and read the context of the verse.  It has to do with the headship of Christ and the husband to the wife.  It's God's governmental arrangement and it is not popular, but still it is there.  What does patriarchy have to do with it?  This is not the same as patriarchy.

May I safely assume that you never wear gold jewlery or braid your hair, or "fine clothes" - that you do not ever "adorn" yourself externally in any way?
 

Originally Posted by Shami 

The context within the passage, context within the particular book/epistle, and the context within the entire New Testament, and finally the context of it within the entire Bible is how verses should be interpreted.  Oh and of course, with a discernment, wisdom and revelation, led by the Holy Spirit and balanced with the body of Christ.  Maybe I am leaving something out, but that's all I can think of for now.

I said basically the same thing upthread. 
 

Originally Posted by Bluegoat 

On another note:  I have a question for people, especially those who feel women should not be in different rooles than men.  How do you feel about pagan groups who have specific roles for men and women in their worship?  What about those groups which are led by women only?  Is this different than the idea of an all-male priesthood?  I'd love to hear from any pagans on the question too.

I feel that true Christian leadership should be rooted in equality.  This is clearly what Jesus Christ taught.  I can't speak to other faiths, though.
 

[Smokering]

Except that Jesus wasn't attempting to set up a church government, and Paul seems to have had a bit of an agenda (since the cultural thinking of the day & location was basically keep the women quiet and under control).

Unless you believe (as I do and I suspect Shami does) that Paul's writings about church government were inspired by God, and thus "set up" by Jesus just as much as things Jesus personally said. I'm not sure that liberal and conservative views of the Bible allow for particularly meaningful interaction - they're poles apart epistemologically.

Remember Galileo?  We imprisoned him as a heretic for concluding that the Earth is not the center of the universe, as the Church once believed and taught.

This is a pet peeve of mine. Galileo's teachings were considered heretical because they went against the accepted cosmology of the day, which was based on the writings of the pagan ancient Greeks. It wasn't nearly as theological a controversy as it's popularly portrayed.

If you read the context of the the verse I gave about the weaker vessel, it has nothing to do with physical strength.

I don't see that that's clear. Women are given a set of moral commands to do with issues that, while not exclusive to women, tend to be particularly relevant to women - vanity being one. Men are then given a set of moral commands to do with issues that tend to be particularly relevant to men - one such being the sinful male tendency to physically abuse or dominate women simply because they are (on average) weaker. The very next part of the sentence reminds husbands that women are "heirs with you of the gracious gift of life", so it seems odd that Paul would be talking about some kind of spiritual weakness in women. I'm not sure of the Greek, but the phrase is often translated as "weaker vessel" - if this accurately reflects the Greek it's another point in favour of the "physical weakness" theory, as "vessel" presumably refers to the body, not the soul (which, by the analogy, would be housed within the vessel).

[Bluegoat]

I feel that true Christian leadership should be rooted in equality.  This is clearly what Jesus Christ taught.  I can't speak to other faiths, though.
 

Equality

[Shami]

My responses in BLUE.

Originally Posted by Trigger 

Originally Posted by Shami 

Trigger,

I am really at a loss for how to converse with you because you don't believe what the Bible says.   

I believe the messages of Scripture, but I also know that as our culture and knowledge have evolved, we continue to discover - as I stated before - the nuances of the message that have been mistranslated, misinterpreted, and so on.

I suspect that you reject ALL scientific evolution; however, the Catholic Church has conceded that evolution likely played a part in creation.

I do not reject evolution.  There is evidence that animals evolved to survive.

Remember Galileo?  We imprisoned him as a heretic for concluding that the Earth is not the center of the universe, as the Church once believed and taught.

In any case, nobody is forcing you to converse with me, nor am I trying to "convert" you.  I'm debating, which is what this forum is for.

My point is that debating you about the divine truths in the Bible will be impossible because you have been convinced that the Bible has been mistranslated and misinterpreted.    It's like trying to convince an atheist that there is a God by using scripture. No matter what I say, you can easily reply with an answer like Paul is all wrong about it and therefore, debate over.  Fellowship requires an openness from both parties.  I am open to hear your points if you can back it up with scripture or even inferences in the scriptures.  

 Paul wrote 14 of the books in the Bible.  If you don't believe in what he wrote then how can we even converse about it?

I can quote a lot of verses, but many will be from Paul's writings, which you have doubts about.

Are you aware that prominent Christian theologians now dispute this (specifically, Ephesians, Colossians, 2nd Thessalonians, 1st & 2nd Timothy, and Titus)?  Hebrews is generally considered an anonymous  letter, and only attributed to Paul by some.  Only seven letters are not disputed, and universally accepted as Pauline writings: Romans, 1st & 2nd Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1st Thessalonians, and Philemon.

No, I have not heard this, nor do I believe it.  I guess with this aspect, I am not open to consider if the Bible is wrong.  I am open to discuss the verses and what they might mean, but not open to say that the Holy Bible is wrong.  I trust in the Bible and I can't imagine it any other way.   I am curious who these prominent theologians are and what their agenda is.

Timothy 1 & 2 and Titus are now considered by most Scripture scholars to be works falsely attributed to Paul by another author.

Originally Posted by Shami 

1 Peter 3:7

7 ^aHusbands, in like manner dwell together with them ¹according to knowledge, as with the ²weaker, female ³vessel, ⁴assigning ^bhonor to them as also to ^cfellow heirs of the ⁵grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered.

Here is the verse that says that the female is the weaker vessel, but that husbands should assign honor to them.  It is not a negative thing, it's just the fact.  You have to go back and read the context of the verse.  It has to do with the headship of Christ and the husband to the wife.  It's God's governmental arrangement and it is not popular, but still it is there.  What does patriarchy have to do with it?  This is not the same as patriarchy.

May I safely assume that you never wear gold jewlery or braid your hair, or "fine clothes" - that you do not ever "adorn" yourself externally in any way?
 

I wear my gold wedding band.  I stopped wearing jewlery and I shop for quality modest clothes.  But this is not a legal thing, nor is it something we focus on in our gatherings.  It is a personal choice.  Some females I meet with look like a movie star and others look quite homely, but it is not something that is taught in a legal way.  We don't pass judgement on others because it is a matter of growth in life.  As Christ grows in us, He touches us about our dress.  It is not up to the eldership or anyone else to do this.  I'm still praying about head covering.  I feel led to do it, but I don't know how and when.

Originally Posted by Shami 

The context within the passage, context within the particular book/epistle, and the context within the entire New Testament, and finally the context of it within the entire Bible is how verses should be interpreted.  Oh and of course, with a discernment, wisdom and revelation, led by the Holy Spirit and balanced with the body of Christ.  Maybe I am leaving something out, but that's all I can think of for now.

I said basically the same thing upthread. 
 

Originally Posted by Bluegoat 

On another note:  I have a question for people, especially those who feel women should not be in different rooles than men.  How do you feel about pagan groups who have specific roles for men and women in their worship?  What about those groups which are led by women only?  Is this different than the idea of an all-male priesthood?  I'd love to hear from any pagans on the question too.

I feel that true Christian leadership should be rooted in equality.  This is clearly what Jesus Christ taught.  I can't speak to other faiths, though.
 

[Trigger]

Originally Posted by Smokering 

Remember Galileo?  We imprisoned him as a heretic for concluding that the Earth is not the center of the universe, as the Church once believed and taught.

This is a pet peeve of mine. Galileo's teachings were considered heretical because they went against the accepted cosmology of the day, which was based on the writings of the pagan ancient Greeks. It wasn't nearly as theological a controversy as it's popularly portrayed.

Per the Inquisition, Galileo was ordered by Rome not to "hold or defend" the idea that the earth moves around a centered sun.

He was subsequently ordered to trial for heresy, found guilty, and placed under house arrest for the remainder of his life.(nine years).  His works were condemned and banned by the Church.

[Trigger]

Originally Posted by Shami 

My point is that debating you about the divine truths in the Bible will be impossible because you have been convinced that the Bible has been mistranslated and misinterpreted.    It's like trying to convince an atheist that there is a God by using scripture. No matter what I say, you can easily reply with an answer like Paul is all wrong about it and therefore, debate over.  Fellowship requires an openness from both parties.  I am open to hear your points if you can back it up with scripture or even inferences in the scriptures.  

 Paul wrote 14 of the books in the Bible.  If you don't believe in what he wrote then how can we even converse about it?

I can quote a lot of verses, but many will be from Paul's writings, which you have doubts about.

Are you aware that prominent Christian theologians now dispute this (specifically, Ephesians, Colossians, 2nd Thessalonians, 1st & 2nd Timothy, and Titus)?  Hebrews is generally considered an anonymous  letter, and only attributed to Paul by some.  Only seven letters are not disputed, and universally accepted as Pauline writings: Romans, 1st & 2nd Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1st Thessalonians, and Philemon.

No, I have not heard this, nor do I believe it.  I guess with this aspect, I am not open to consider if the Bible is wrong.  I am open to discuss the verses and what they might mean, but not open to say that the Holy Bible is wrong.  I trust in the Bible and I can't imagine it any other way.   I am curious who these prominent theologians are and what their agenda is.

Timothy 1 & 2 and Titus are now considered by most Scripture scholars to be works falsely attributed to Paul by another author.

http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Paul-Disputed.htm

 1 Timothy,  2 Timothy, Titus (a.k.a. The Pastoral Epistles) were most likely written late in the first century by some member(s) of the "Pauline School" who wanted to adapt his teachings to changing circumstances.
 

 The so-called Epistle to the Hebrews is definitely not written by Paul, and is not even explicitly attributed to him.

[Shami]

Originally Posted by Smokering 

Except that Jesus wasn't attempting to set up a church government, and Paul seems to have had a bit of an agenda (since the cultural thinking of the day & location was basically keep the women quiet and under control).

Unless you believe (as I do and I suspect Shami does) that Paul's writings about church government were inspired by God, and thus "set up" by Jesus just as much as things Jesus personally said. I'm not sure that liberal and conservative views of the Bible allow for particularly meaningful interaction - they're poles apart epistemologically.

Remember Galileo?  We imprisoned him as a heretic for concluding that the Earth is not the center of the universe, as the Church once believed and taught.

This is a pet peeve of mine. Galileo's teachings were considered heretical because they went against the accepted cosmology of the day, which was based on the writings of the pagan ancient Greeks. It wasn't nearly as theological a controversy as it's popularly portrayed.

If you read the context of the the verse I gave about the weaker vessel, it has nothing to do with physical strength.

I don't see that that's clear. Women are given a set of moral commands to do with issues that, while not exclusive to women, tend to be particularly relevant to women - vanity being one. Men are then given a set of moral commands to do with issues that tend to be particularly relevant to men - one such being the sinful male tendency to physically abuse or dominate women simply because they are (on average) weaker. The very next part of the sentence reminds husbands that women are "heirs with you of the gracious gift of life", so it seems odd that Paul would be talking about some kind of spiritual weakness in women. I'm not sure of the Greek, but the phrase is often translated as "weaker vessel" - if this accurately reflects the Greek it's another point in favour of the "physical weakness" theory, as "vessel" presumably refers to the body, not the soul (which, by the analogy, would be housed within the vessel).

1 Peter 3

1 In ¹like manner, ^awives, be subject to your own husbands, that even if any disobey the ²word, they will be gained without the ²word through the manner of life of their ^bwives,

2 Seeing with their own eyes your ¹pure manner of life ²in ^3afear.

3 Let your ^aadorning not be the outward ¹plaiting of hair and putting on of ^bgold or clothing with garments,

4 But the ¹hidden man of the ^aheart in the incorruptible adornment of a meek and quiet ^bspirit, which is very ^ccostly in the sight of God.

5 For in this manner formerly the holy women also, who ^ahoped in God, adorned themselves, being ^bsubject to their own husbands,

6 As Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him ^alord; whose children you have become, if you do good and do not ^bfear any ¹terror.

7 ^aHusbands, in like manner dwell together with them ¹according to knowledge, as with the ²weaker, female ³vessel, ⁴assigning ^bhonor to them as also to ^cfellow heirs of the ⁵grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered.
 

In that section, Paul is talking about being beautiful on the inside because of Christ indwelling our vessel.  Rather than focus on outward beautification, focus on the inner man (Eph).  Being strengthen into our inner man will make us the most beautiful, loving wives.  At the end of this section on married life, he says that the female is the weaker vessel.  I think there is evidence that it is a spiritual weakness.  1 Timothy says that Eve was deceived by the serpent, which makes her a spiritually weak vessel.  Adam was no better because he listened to his wife and followed her.  Again the headship was over thrown and Eve led her husband rather than the other way around.  Look where that got us. 

But you could be right that we are the weaker physical vessel, too.  In most cases it is true.  Men are stronger, except when they get a cold/flu and then they are like little babes.  lol 

[Shami]

Originally Posted by Trigger 

Originally Posted by Shami 

My point is that debating you about the divine truths in the Bible will be impossible because you have been convinced that the Bible has been mistranslated and misinterpreted.    It's like trying to convince an atheist that there is a God by using scripture. No matter what I say, you can easily reply with an answer like Paul is all wrong about it and therefore, debate over.  Fellowship requires an openness from both parties.  I am open to hear your points if you can back it up with scripture or even inferences in the scriptures.  

 Paul wrote 14 of the books in the Bible.  If you don't believe in what he wrote then how can we even converse about it?

I can quote a lot of verses, but many will be from Paul's writings, which you have doubts about.

Are you aware that prominent Christian theologians now dispute this (specifically, Ephesians, Colossians, 2nd Thessalonians, 1st & 2nd Timothy, and Titus)?  Hebrews is generally considered an anonymous  letter, and only attributed to Paul by some.  Only seven letters are not disputed, and universally accepted as Pauline writings: Romans, 1st & 2nd Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1st Thessalonians, and Philemon.

No, I have not heard this, nor do I believe it.  I guess with this aspect, I am not open to consider if the Bible is wrong.  I am open to discuss the verses and what they might mean, but not open to say that the Holy Bible is wrong.  I trust in the Bible and I can't imagine it any other way.   I am curious who these prominent theologians are and what their agenda is.

Timothy 1 & 2 and Titus are now considered by most Scripture scholars to be works falsely attributed to Paul by another author.

http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Paul-Disputed.htm

 1 Timothy,  2 Timothy, Titus (a.k.a. The Pastoral Epistles) were most likely written late in the first century by some member(s) of the "Pauline School" who wanted to adapt his teachings to changing circumstances.
 

 The so-called Epistle to the Hebrews is definitely not written by Paul, and is not even explicitly attributed to him.

From what I understand this is one person, Dr. Felix Just, and his research, that is causing you to doubt so much of the New Testament?  Is this Dr. well respected in the
RCC?    Anyone who causes me to doubt the validity of the Bible is suspect, and I'd steer clear or my faith may be shaken and damaged.  I say this in love, beware.

[Trigger]

Originally Posted by Bluegoat 

I feel that true Christian leadership should be rooted in equality.  This is clearly what Jesus Christ taught.  I can't speak to other faiths, though.
 

Equality

 

[Smokering]

In that section, Paul is talking about being beautiful on the inside because of Christ indwelling our vessel.  Rather than focus on outward beautification, focus on the inner man (Eph).  Being strengthen into our inner man will make us the most beautiful, loving wives.  At the end of this section on married life, he says that the female is the weaker vessel.  I think there is evidence that it is a spiritual weakness.  1 Timothy says that Eve was deceived by the serpent, which makes her a spiritually weak vessel.  Adam was no better because he listened to his wife and followed her.  Again the headship was over thrown and Eve led her husband rather than the other way around.  Look where that got us. 

But you could be right that we are the weaker physical vessel, too.  In most cases it is true.  Men are stronger, except when they get a cold/flu and then they are like little babes.  lol

You haven't really argued for the "spiritually weaker" interpretation from the text, though. 1 Timothy isn't 1 Peter; they're separate books, so it's a bit of a leap to use a different discussion in one to prove that Paul meant something in a totally different context. You yourself are using the phrase "vessel" to refer to the physical body, not the spiritual self. Plus, it makes no sense to say that Eve was spiritually weaker by being deceived, and then say that Adam was no better. If he's no better than she is, they're of equal weakness.

Per the Inquisition, Galileo was ordered by Rome not to "hold or defend" the idea that the earth moves around a centered sun.

He was subsequently ordered to trial for heresy, found guilty, and placed under house arrest for the remainder of his life.(nine years).  His works were condemned and banned by the Church.

That's the Cliff's Notes version, yes. It's rather simplistic. At heart the issue was a clash between the scientific orthodoxy of the day - which had, like pretty much every other art or science, been co-opted by the Church and used for its own purposes, but which originated in Aristotelian thought - and a revolutionary new theory which overturned a whole lot of deeply-held beliefs - and not just religious ones. This article on the Copernican system gives a somewhat more balanced picture of the conflict.

[genifer]

The weaker vessel... I was wondering, of the protestand ladies here (I say it like that bc the catholic ladies seem not to agree on that issue, scripturally speaking), have any of you done a good long hard prayer led study on what exactly that means? Thats what Im in the process of doing on the subject of women in leadership roles and its been very interesting for me  personally, Ill share what Ive personally learned later maybe. I think for me, the next step in getting my head around this is to understand what God means by the weaker sex (God, as in God=the Holy Spirit via Paul, bc thats what I believe too )

I just had a thought... Is it possible 'the weaker sex', in context, means something more along the lines of being more easily suseptable to the deceptions of the enemy? We are generally weaker physically, I can see that. Spiritually, Im not sure if thats always entirely true or if its the same as 'weaker as in more easily decieved by satan'. What does it mean to be spiritually strong? I know circumstances and relationships where the woman is definately stronger then her dh, spiritually speaking. Im wondering if it has something to do with deception. When my dh is on the ball I can totally trust his judgements in spiritual matters. When he's not practicing as hard as *I* think he should, I can see how its more of a laziness thing and then its much more easy for me to become confused, as if Im being spiritually attacked. It actually mirrors what went on in the garden of eden, its uncanny really. I have to be *more* vigilant or I stumble and make really incredibly stupid decisions, spiritually speaking...

Jus a thought.

Edited by genifer - 12/14/10 at 11:59pm

[Trigger]

Originally Posted by Shami 

Originally Posted by Trigger 

Originally Posted by Shami 

My point is that debating you about the divine truths in the Bible will be impossible because you have been convinced that the Bible has been mistranslated and misinterpreted.    It's like trying to convince an atheist that there is a God by using scripture. No matter what I say, you can easily reply with an answer like Paul is all wrong about it and therefore, debate over.  Fellowship requires an openness from both parties.  I am open to hear your points if you can back it up with scripture or even inferences in the scriptures.  

 Paul wrote 14 of the books in the Bible.  If you don't believe in what he wrote then how can we even converse about it?

I can quote a lot of verses, but many will be from Paul's writings, which you have doubts about.

Are you aware that prominent Christian theologians now dispute this (specifically, Ephesians, Colossians, 2nd Thessalonians, 1st & 2nd Timothy, and Titus)?  Hebrews is generally considered an anonymous  letter, and only attributed to Paul by some.  Only seven letters are not disputed, and universally accepted as Pauline writings: Romans, 1st & 2nd Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1st Thessalonians, and Philemon.

No, I have not heard this, nor do I believe it.  I guess with this aspect, I am not open to consider if the Bible is wrong.  I am open to discuss the verses and what they might mean, but not open to say that the Holy Bible is wrong.  I trust in the Bible and I can't imagine it any other way.   I am curious who these prominent theologians are and what their agenda is.

Timothy 1 & 2 and Titus are now considered by most Scripture scholars to be works falsely attributed to Paul by another author.

http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Paul-Disputed.htm

 1 Timothy,  2 Timothy, Titus (a.k.a. The Pastoral Epistles) were most likely written late in the first century by some member(s) of the "Pauline School" who wanted to adapt his teachings to changing circumstances.
 

 The so-called Epistle to the Hebrews is definitely not written by Paul, and is not even explicitly attributed to him.

From what I understand this is one person, Dr. Felix Just, and his research, that is causing you to doubt so much of the New Testament?  Is this Dr. well respected in the
RCC?    Anyone who causes me to doubt the validity of the Bible is suspect, and I'd steer clear or my faith may be shaken and damaged.  I say this in love, beware.

No Shami, it's not just one guy (pun intended).  This is current, widely-accepted, and even scientifically proven theology (as in, some of these letters can now be dated after Paul's death).

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_ntb3.htm

http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/corinthians/deutero.stm

 

[Bluegoat]

No Shami, it's not just one guy (pun intended).  This is current, widely-accepted, and even scientifically proven theology (as in, some of these letters can now be dated after Paul's death).

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_ntb3.htm

http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/corinthians/deutero.stm

 

You realize though that these kinds of authorship questions are not new?  They are not some new revelation that means that somehow the Church looks at their authority differently.  I'm not sure why you have come to the conclusion that it changes anything.  The Epistle to the Hebrews was not definitively attributed even in the first centuries of the Church, and when the Catholic canon was closed at Trent, it was still disputed.  It seems a bit strange to put these questions of authorship as if they were somehow new, modern ideas that change everything, and as if the Church would have defined the canon differently.  That is an inaccurate characterization. 
 

[genifer]

Ok, just to get things back on track here. While I expected differing views on the subject of women in church leadership roles I didnt really start the thread for it to be turned into a debate about the authenticity of certain books of the bible. Thats taking this discussion onto areas that arent helpful in understanding a woman's role in church. Perhaps it would have been more helpful if I explained the biblical position I personally come from when I started the thread.

I am of the same school of thought as Shami and Smokering regarding biblical interpretation. The more I follow Christ, the closer I am to Him, as time goes on in my own walk and the more I grow the more I am convinced of that pov. I guess Id be considered a 'fundamentalist'. I think the bible, as in the authorised version (kjv) has been preserved for christians in this day and age. I dont believe the doubts about pauline authorship of the disputed books mentioned here. I read those books as if they were Holy Spirit inspired and are of incredible value in totality and I dont think Paul missed the mark at all. I think we misunderstand a thing or two. Ill have more time to discuss what Ive learned recently about the original topic tomorrow morning, probably (my time).

But I just wanted to steer the thread back on topic if you guys dont mind.

gen

[Purple Sage]

Originally Posted by genifer 

Ok, just to get things back on track here. While I expected differing views on the subject of women in church leadership roles I didnt really start the thread for it to be turned into a debate about the authenticity of certain books of the bible. Thats taking this discussion onto areas that arent helpful in understanding a woman's role in church. Perhaps it would have been more helpful if I explained the biblical position I personally come from when I started the thread.

I am of the same school of thought as Shami and Smokering regarding biblical interpretation. The more I follow Christ, the closer I am to Him, as time goes on in my own walk and the more I grow the more I am convinced of that pov. I guess Id be considered a 'fundamentalist'. I think the bible, as in the authorised version (kjv) has been preserved for christians in this day and age. I dont believe the doubts about pauline authorship of the disputed books mentioned here. I read those books as if they were Holy Spirit inspired and are of incredible value in totality and I dont think Paul missed the mark at all. I think we misunderstand a thing or two. Ill have more time to discuss what Ive learned recently about the original topic tomorrow morning, probably (my time).

But I just wanted to steer the thread back on topic if you guys dont mind.

gen

Why do you believe the bolded part?  If you don't mind me asking, that is. 

I agree with Bluegoat that the Church defined what is Scripture and the disputes over authorship don't really change anything.  What I'd be interested in is learning more about how the Church interprets the Scripture.  If the people who determined the canon can be trusted to do that, then I would think their interpretation of that Scripture could be trusted, too.