Women in the early Christian church and the ordination of women bishops

There is nothing in the New Testament that allows women to be pastors or priests. Women in the church can teach older women, or lead them in some way, but that's not the same as being a pastor or priest. Being a pastor is a position on authority, and Paul said that no woman is to have authority over a man. God ordained men to have authority in the church, not women. If you only believe that the 4 gospels are to be followed, then that means you are rejecting the other 23 books in the New Testament.

:sleep:

:sleep:

Your silence says it all. The fact that you cannot back up your opinion with Scripture is proof that your opinion is unbiblical. Until you use Scripture to back up your position, we must hold to the fact that women are not suppose to be pastors or priests.

Your silence says it all. The fact that you cannot back up your opinion with Scripture is proof that your opinion is unbiblical. Until you use Scripture to back up your position, we must hold to the fact that women are not suppose to be pastors or priests.

Silence... I wouldn't have said Judy has been silent at all. She's provided you with links to information you could read if you choose to, though it seems you're not interested in any opinion but your own, and in my experience, what Judy discusses is not simply her own opinion, but most certainly those of well studies scriptures of Christianity. There is most certainly no 'fact' in what you claim to be fact, just because you quote the scriptures of your churches version of the New Testament. Have you considered why it's called the 'New' testament... because it's certainly not original teachings, but those that have been interpreted and translated many times over... oh hang on we've been here before haven't we, and you're not interested in discussing anything that may challenge your own 'truth'.

With all due respect Stephen, the Healthypages forums are a place for healthy and friendly discussion between people of all sorts of beliefs; a place where people generally respect that each may have a different viewpoint, and those same people are willing to discuss and listen to others opinions even if they don't necessarily agree. In the short time you've been here, all that you apparently seem to have done, is make blatent statements of 'truth' (your truth) without any willingness to actually discuss these things with other people, and at the same time you are going against the forum rules of discussing in a friendly manner by casting accusations about how certain members are not truly christian, how they are unbiblical, or in the case of myself, outright calling me a liar, whilst at the same time clearly showing you have not bothered to read those other members opinions. That is not the sort of attitude towards others that I expect to see from someone who is a follower of Christianity (whatever happened to love thy neighbour?) and it does come across as being very much that of a preacher. If your intention on these forums is to just come here and preach without entering into healthy and friendly discussion, the I would suggest you have perhaps come to the wrong place to make your postings.

Perhaps therefore, you would like to take your 'truth' elsewhere to people who are happy to just take your word for it, and who aren't going to upset you by questioning things, because (with my moderators hat on) such a negative attitude towards other members and their beliefs, will not be accepted here.

All Love and Reiki Hugs

Silence... I wouldn't have said Judy has been silent at all. She's provided you with links to information you could read if you choose to, though it seems you're not interested in any opinion but your own, and in my experience, what Judy discusses is not simply her own opinion, but most certainly those of well studies scriptures of Christianity. There is most certainly no 'fact' in what you claim to be fact, just because you quote the scriptures of your churches version of the New Testament. Have you considered why it's called the 'New' testament... because it's certainly not original teachings, but those that have been interpreted and translated many times over... oh hang on we've been here before haven't we, and you're not interested in discussing anything that may challenge your own 'truth'.

With all due respect Stephen, the Healthypages forums are a place for healthy and friendly discussion between people of all sorts of beliefs; a place where people generally respect that each may have a different viewpoint, and those same people are willing to discuss and listen to others opinions even if they don't necessarily agree. In the short time you've been here, all that you apparently seem to have done, is make blatent statements of 'truth' (your truth) without any willingness to actually discuss these things with other people, and at the same time you are going against the forum rules of discussing in a friendly manner by casting accusations about how certain members are not truly christian, how they are unbiblical, or in the case of myself, outright calling me a liar, whilst at the same time clearly showing you have not bothered to read those other members opinions. That is not the sort of attitude towards others that I expect to see from someone who is a follower of Christianity (whatever happened to love thy neighbour?) and it does come across as being very much that of a preacher. If your intention on these forums is to just come here and preach without entering into healthy and friendly discussion, the I would suggest you have perhaps come to the wrong place to make your postings.

Perhaps therefore, you would like to take your 'truth' elsewhere to people who are happy to just take your word for it, and who aren't going to upset you by questioning things, because (with my moderators hat on) such a negative attitude towards other members and their beliefs, will not be accepted here.

All Love and Reiki Hugs

Please understand, I only care what Scripture says. If you cannot back up your opinion with Scripture, then I cannot take your opinion seriously. If the Scriptures truly supported women pastors, which they don't, then you wouldn't hesitate to show them.

Following this line of logic, because motor cars are not mentioned in the Scriptures therefore we shouldn't ride in one? TVs, computers, aeroplanes, electricity, and SatNavs are not mentioned either. Does that mean the use of these apparatus is against the will of God?

Life moves on, humanity moves on (hard to believe sometimes I know), roles change, women are regaining empowerment, the covered up evilness of child abuse is being exposed. Yet some people seem to hide themselves, stuck rigid in calcified beliefs.

I always thought Paul was bit of a woman-hater, but as Principle Judy (bless her teaspoon of sugar that helps the medicine go down 😉 lol) points out that may not be the case. That's fine by me as truth has to be explored and ultimately experienced. Anyone can quote out of books (though useful sometimes to express thoughts and feelings), but it's the fruits of one's action that demonstrate truth (real or false).

RP

Please understand, I only care what Scripture says. If you cannot back up your opinion with Scripture, then I cannot take your opinion seriously. If the Scriptures truly supported women pastors, which they don't, then you wouldn't hesitate to show them.

So you're not interested in interpretations or opinions of the scriptures or other beliefs? You only believe in the literal words of your own translation of the bible. I'm sorry, but that sounds too much like fundamentalism to me and, with respect, won't work well in discussions that we have on these forums, as it makes everything all one sided... in which case it's not a discussion.

All Love and Reiki Hugs

Your silence says it all. The fact that you cannot back up your opinion with Scripture is proof that your opinion is unbiblical. Until you use Scripture to back up your position, we must hold to the fact that women are not suppose to be pastors or priests.

Well Stephen,

First of all, my silence was sheer boredom with trying to have a conversation with someone who won't listen (in this case, read) All the info is on the links I originally posted, which you haven't bothered to read and is to be found on many Bible sites, including these:

[DLMURL="http://www.oxfordbiblechurch.co.uk/pages/bible-commentary/1corinthians/1corinthians-143435.php"]Oxford Bible Church - 1Corinthians 14:34,35[/DLMURL]

[url]Women Keep Silent[/url]

In Paul's letters he greets women. Calls them co-workers. Refers to one of them [with] a word in Greek that we would translate as "deaconess." Even calls one of the women an Apostle. [url]The Roles For Women | From Jesus To Christ - The First Christians | FRONTLINE | PBS[/url]

Quite apart from it being very clear to most Bible scholars that those words about silence from women were nothing to do with Paul's theological teachings, have you noticed that women are not the only people Paul tells to be “silent.” He uses the same word in I Cor 14: 28 & 30 to tell tongue-speakers and prophets to be silent when others speak. In both of those verses, he is calling for a temporary silence, not a complete and permanent prohibition.

Also, this letter was a reply to another letter, perhaps a request. In it, Paul was addressing men and speaking of their wives remaining silent, which puts a whole new slant on it.
See [url]Part 2: Should A Woman Be Silent In The Assembly? - Women In The Church - Articles - TheRealChurch.com[/url]

One 19th century Bible commentator holds this extreme and minority view that denies the right of women to speak, prophesy or speak in tongues by saying: "This rule is positive, explicit, and universal ... women were to keep silence ... take no part in speaking foreign languages and of prophecy." This commentator's dogmatic statements are totally unjustified and without merit. He disregards Scripture's declaration that women will prophesy (Joel 2:28; Acts 2:17-18) and have already done so in the Corinthian church (1 Cor. 11:5). He believed the phrase, "as saith the Law" in 1 Cor. 14:34 was linked to Gen. 3.16 but offered no scriptural evidence in support of his opinion. [url]Women Keep Silent[/url]

Joel 2:28, 29
“And afterward,
I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
your old men will dream dreams,
your young men will see visions.
Even on my servants, both men and women,
I will pour out my Spirit in those days.

Peter quotes this prophecy by Joel during the day of Pentecost

The testimony of the Old Testament. The phrase, "just as the law also says" is not supported by the Old Testament. It is the major weakness of the view that 1 Cor. 14:34-35 represents Paul's declarative statement that women are not permitted to speak. None of these commentators have adequately discussed or resolved how the words, Let the women keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak are supported by the Old Testament verses they cite. The Genesis citations quoted by these scholars (Gen. 1:26, 2:21, 3:16) have nothing to do with denying women the right to speak in church. The reason given in verse 34 that women are not permitted to speak relates directly to the phrase, "just as the law also says." Only the phrase: "but let them subject themselves" is a possible allusion to Gen. 3:16. But the subject phrase, "just as the law also says," contradicts Paul's known teachings that we have been liberated from the law (Rom. 3:28; 6:14, 7:16, 8:2; Gal 3:11, 13, 4:5, 5:18, etc.).\
[url]Women Keep Silent[/url]

Galatians 3: 23-28
Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed.
So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith.
Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.

So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.
There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

We have been liberated from the law. Since Paul claims that we have been liberated from the law, how could he appeal to it? Paul also fought against the religious zealots of his day who tried to impose the requirements of the Old Testament's written and oral laws on New Testament believers in Christ. These verses cannot represent the apostle Paul's inspired words. Why? The reason is there is nothing written in the canon of Scripture from which Paul could have quoted to support such a declaration. Such an appeal would also contradict Paul's previously stated position in 1 Corinthians that women can pray and prophesy in church.

Paul does not refer to written Scripture in this manner. In the entire epistle of 1 Corinthians, whenever Paul quotes from and specially uses the term "law" (meaning written Scripture) he does so with specific intent, focus, and stylistic writing. For example, in 1 Cor. 9:8-9 Paul writes, Does not the law also say the same? For it is written in the law of Moses: "You shall not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain." After referring to the law as saying something, Paul tells us that it is written and immediately quotes Deut 25:4 verbatim. Also in 1 Cor. 14:21 after Paul writes, "In the Law it is written," he immediately quotes from Isaiah 28:11-12. Again, in 1 Cor. 4:6 where Paul generally refers to Scripture, he tells the Corinthians to learn through us the meaning of the saying "Do not go beyond what is written." In every case when Paul specially refers to Scripture, he says it is written (1 Cor. 1:19, 1:31, 2:9, 3:19, 10:7, 15:45) and consistently quotes from the Old Testament to prove his point.

However, in 1 Corinthians 14:34 the passage simply states just as the Law also says without reference to it being written. Why would Paul suddenly change his consistent writing style in this verse only? Why doesn't Paul even say it is written or even quote from the Old Testament as he has previously done in every instance throughout this epistle? Why? The reason is more likely these are not Paul's words. Either Paul was quoting a non-biblical source, such as a slogan or rabbinic saying or verses 34-35 represent an interpolation, an alteration of Scripture. In either interpretive option, these words did not originate with Paul. [url]Women Keep Silent[/url]

The evidence is all there right in the NT.

Love and peace,

Judy

Well Stephen,

First of all, my silence was sheer boredom with trying to have a conversation with someone who won't listen (in this case, read) All the info is on the links I originally posted, which you haven't bothered to read and is to be found on many Bible sites, including these:

[DLMURL="http://www.oxfordbiblechurch.co.uk/pages/bible-commentary/1corinthians/1corinthians-143435.php"]Oxford Bible Church - 1Corinthians 14:34,35[/DLMURL]

[url]Women Keep Silent[/url]

Quite apart from it being very clear to most Bible scholars that those words about silence from women were nothing to do with Paul's theological teachings, have you noticed that women are not the only people Paul tells to be “silent.” He uses the same word in I Cor 14: 28 & 30 to tell tongue-speakers and prophets to be silent when others speak. In both of those verses, he is calling for a temporary silence, not a complete and permanent prohibition.

Also, this letter was a reply to another letter, perhaps a request. In it, Paul was addressing men and speaking of their wives remaining silent, which puts a whole new slant on it.
See [url]Part 2: Should A Woman Be Silent In The Assembly? - Women In The Church - Articles - TheRealChurch.com[/url]

Joel 2:28, 29
“And afterward,
I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
your old men will dream dreams,
your young men will see visions.
Even on my servants, both men and women,
I will pour out my Spirit in those days.

Peter quotes this prophecy by Joel during the day of Pentecost

Galatians 3: 23-28
Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed.
So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith.
Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.

So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.
There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

The evidence is all there right in the NT.

Love and peace,

Judy

1 Corinthians 14:34-35 doesn't say woman (singular), it says women (plural). 1 Corinthians 14:27-28 is referring to an individual. However, one thing that cannot be ignored is 1 Timothy 2:12-14: "But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into transgression." Being a pastor puts a person in a position of authority, and Paul clearly says that a woman is not to have authority over a man.

You also quoted Galatians 3:23-28. This verse is often used to support the idea that women can hold the offices of elder and pastor because there is neither male nor female in Christ. The argument states that if we are all equal, then women can be pastors. Unfortunately, those who use this verse this way have failed to read the context. Verse 23 talks about being under the Law "before faith came" and how we are brought closer to Jesus and have become sons of God by faith. We are no longer under law but grace and we are "Abraham's offspring, heirs according to the promise,"

The point of this passage is that we are all saved by God's grace according to the promise of God and that it doesn't matter who you are, Jew, Greek, slave, free, male, or female. All are saved the same way, by grace. In that, there is neither male nor female. This verse is not talking about church structure. It is talking about salvation "in Christ." It cannot be used to support women as pastors because that isn't what it is talking about. Instead, to find out about church structure and leadership, you need to go to those passages that talk about it: 1 Timothy 2 and Titus 1.

You're not arguing with me Stephen - but with respected Bible scholars.

My area of interest is original Christianity - the time just after Jesus' resurrection and ascension, the time before the Church of Rome was created with its non-Biblical creeds and women were a vital and equal part of those early communities who followed "The Way". That's what this thread is about - returning to the original roots of pure Christianity, which included women. Christian healing also featured in those early days, and they even raised the dead. Sadly that mostly died out after the AD 300's, when dogma, ritual, creeds and materiality came in.

Love and peace,

Judy

Reminds me of when I overheard a discussion on the subject of the possibility of women pastors, where one of the participants drew himself up to his full height, full of indination at the idea, and stated very forcefully: "Only women can have babies, and only men can be priests!". I'm afraid I had the greatest difficulty in not collapsing with laughter - and this was very many years ago.

Some people hold very rigid views and whatever is said or explained to them, they want everyone to toe only their line. Maybe we have come to the end of this particular line - thanks Judy for the references 🙂 they make interesting reading.

It might be interesting however to look at the [url]Gospel of Mary Magdalene[/url], and the [url]Pistis Sophia[/url]? Just because someone decided not to include them in the NT doesn't mean she wasn't a disciple, teacher, healer and a Gnostic.

I found Professor [url]Barbara Thiering's book [/url]well researched and argued. Gives a whole new perspective on the beginnings of Christianity and the interpretation of what is actually said ie the cover story as opposed to the pesher, but that is another debate! There was a whole heap of argument even amongst the disciples, so at this distance who is to say which version is the definitive "right" one?:confused:

You're not arguing with me Stephen - but with respected Bible scholars.

My area of interest is original Christianity - the time just after Jesus' resurrection and ascension, the time before the Church of Rome was created with its non-Biblical creeds and women were a vital and equal part of those early communities who followed "The Way". That's what this thread is about - returning to the original roots of pure Christianity, which included women. Christian healing also featured in those early days, and they even raised the dead. Sadly that mostly died out after the AD 300's, when dogma, ritual, creeds and materiality came in.

Love and peace,

Judy

I can also find Biblical scholars that disagree with you. So what? You don't have to be a scholar in order to read the Bible. Why would I believe a scholar over what the Bible says when a lot of scholars have their own biased? I believe women do play an important role in Christianity. But when it comes to positions of authority, God ordained men for this role. I refuse to compromise the word of God with political correctness and the opinions of the world.

I can also find Biblical scholars that disagree with you. So what? You don't have to be a scholar in order to read the Bible. Why would I believe a scholar over what the Bible says when a lot of scholars have their own biased?

Ooo, now there's a conundrum... as the bible you're reading was translated and interpreted and re-interpreted by.... you guessed it... Scholars, over many years. So why do you believe the words of the bible that were written by some scholars and not the words of interpretation by other scholars. Just because some managed to get their interpetations included in the bible doesn't negate the interpretations of the others.

I believe women do play an important role in Christianity. But when it comes to positions of authority, God ordained men for this role. I refuse to compromise the word of God with political correctness and the opinions of the world.

You mean the word of scholars, who have interpreted and translated scriptures based on their own male dominated society, that you are believing to be the word of God... because that's what you've been told it is. The only way you could know for sure that it is absolutely the word of God, would be if God had told you the words himself.

It's sad that you feel the way you do, as it just comes across as blatent discrimination towards other human beings... when in truth... christianity as I know it, certainly doesn't teach that one should judge others or discriminate in such a way.

All Love and Reiki Hugs

Ooo, now there's a conundrum... as the bible you're reading was translated and interpreted and re-interpreted by.... you guessed it... Scholars, over many years. So why do you believe the words of the bible that were written by some scholars and not the words of interpretation by other scholars. Just because some managed to get their interpetations included in the bible doesn't negate the interpretations of the others.

You mean the word of scholars, who have interpreted and translated scriptures based on their own male dominated society, that you are believing to be the word of God... because that's what you've been told it is. The only way you could know for sure that it is absolutely the word of God, would be if God had told you the words himself.

It's sad that you feel the way you do, as it just comes across as blatent discrimination towards other human beings... when in truth... christianity as I know it, certainly doesn't teach that one should judge others or discriminate in such a way.

All Love and Reiki Hugs

Anybody can find a scholar that agrees with them. I prefer to believe what the word of God says.

Some people hold very rigid views and whatever is said or explained to them, they want everyone to toe only their line. Maybe we have come to the end of this particular line - thanks Judy for the references 🙂 they make interesting reading.

It might be interesting however to look at the [url]Gospel of Mary Magdalene[/url], and the [url]Pistis Sophia[/url]? Just because someone decided not to include them in the NT doesn't mean she wasn't a disciple, teacher, healer and a Gnostic.

I agree with you Caroline that hopefully we have come to the end of this particular line.

Being interested in original Christianity I have looked into a few of the ancient manuscripts that are dismissively named Gnostic and shunned by some Christians who won't even consider them. Some of the ones I've looked at have horrified me and I can quite understand why they have been excluded, but others I have to wonder about. in particular, there is the Gospel of Thomas and also the Gospel of Mary of Magdala.

From your Wiki Gospel of Mary link Caroline is this observation:

Karen King considers the work to provide:

"...an intriguing glimpse into a kind of Christianity lost for almost fifteen hundred years...[it] presents a radical interpretation of Jesus' teachings as a path to inner spiritual knowledge; it rejects His suffering and death as the path to eternal life; it exposes the erroneous view that Mary of Magdala was a prostitute for what it is—a piece of theological fiction; it presents the most straightforward and convincing argument in any early Christian writing for the legitimacy of women's leadership; it offers a sharp critique of illegitimate power and a utopian vision of spiritual perfection; it challenges our rather romantic views about the harmony and unanimity of the first Christians; and it asks us to rethink the basis for church authority."
[url]Gospel of Mary - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/url]

Here's an excerpt from that Gospel that I find intriguing - no wonder it was excluded by the men who were trying to rid the church of women!

After Mary had said these things, she was silent, since it was up to this point that the Savior had spoken to her.
Andrew responded, addressing the brothers and sisters, "Say what you will about the things she has said, but I do not believe that the S[a]vior said these things, f[or] indeed these teachings are strange ideas."
Peter responded, bringing up similar concerns. He questioned them about the Savior: "Did he, then, speak with a woman in private without our knowing about it? Are we to turn around and listen to her? Did he choose her over us?"
Then [M]ary wept and said to Peter, "My brother Peter, what are you imagining? Do you think that I have thought up these things by myself in my heart or that I am telling lies about the Savior?"
Levi answered, speaking to Peter, "Peter, you have always been a wrathful person. Now I see you contending against the woman like the Adversaries. For if the Savior made her worthy, who are you then for your part to reject her?
[url]Gospel of Mary Text[/url]

The book, Beyond Belief – The Secret Gospel of Thomas by Elaine Pagels gives a fascinating glimpse into early Christianity. She proposes the theory that the Gospel of Thomas was in competition with John's gospel (my favourite gospel - it's the most spiritual) and that for political reasons it was excluded and Jesus' disciple Thomas was ridiculed in John's gospel. Who knows? One thing that is certain though is that Thomas went to India, did many healings and was raising the dead and founded the earliest Christian churches there. There have been Thomas Christians in India since the 1st century.

The Gospel of Thomas was probably one of the earliest compilations of the sayings of Jesus - 114 in all. Some scholars say that it was taken from the gospels of Matthew and Luke, What puzzles me though that if it is simply copied from those gospels, then where did the extra 53 sayings come from?

This is a good site for Christians wanting to know about the Gospel of Thomas. It has an interesting graph which shows the sayings compared to the NT and also the extra ones. [url]The Gospel of Thomas[/url]

Another deeply inspiring writing that I love is Revelations of divine Love by Julian of Norwich, which was the first religious book written by a woman, dating back to 1373 when Julian (not her real name) had a series of sixteen visions of being taught by the crucified Jesus on her death bed. What she saw in these visions of divine Love brought her back to life. Her writings are now embraced by Christians and others of all persuasions, even though during her life time, she would probably have been put to death for the "heretical" things about God that she was shown. But she is a subject for her own thread. I only mention her because she ends the book with these words:
[COLOR="Blue"]
"Just because I am a woman, must I therefore believe that I must not tell you about the goodness of God?’

I think it’s fascinating that these discoveries of ancient texts that the Church thought they had destroyed, are all coming to light in these recent centuries. I for one won’t bury my head in the sand, but neither will it change what I have discovered in my own relationship with God and Jesus and what I have proved in my own life.

What strikes me is that many Christians are afraid of these writings, so they feel they have to condemn them. Well, if that is so, then their faith can’t be that secure.

Love and peace,

Judy

Anybody can find a scholar that agrees with them. I prefer to believe what the word of God says.

Stephen, are you a politician? I only ask, because you have that politician trait of completely avoiding the point of discussion, or what people have said to you, to just keep saying what you want to say.

Either that or you really have received the words of God directly yourself?

All Love and Reiki Hugs

Anybody can find a scholar that agrees with them. I prefer to believe what the word of God says.

So God has spoken to you directly? - and you have written it down, I assume, when the words are so very important - and he has actually told you that women are denied the priviledge of preaching and spreading the gospel?

Fantastic!! I really look forward to reading your book when it comes out. Do please let us know when it is printed because we are all agog at what God has to say. Or, did I get that wrong?

Stephen, are you a politician? I only ask, because you have that politician trait of completely avoiding the point of discussion, or what people have said to you, to just keep saying what you want to say.

Either that or you really have received the words of God directly yourself?

All Love and Reiki Hugs

The word of God does not support women pastors. I trust the word of God over the word of sinful humans.

So God has spoken to you directly? - and you have written it down, I assume, when the words are so very important - and he has actually told you that women are denied the priviledge of preaching and spreading the gospel?

Fantastic!! I really look forward to reading your book when it comes out. Do please let us know when it is printed because we are all agog at what God has to say. Or, did I get that wrong?

Women can preach, they just can't be pastors, because being a pastor is a position of authority, and the Bible says that women are not to have authority over men. The word of God should not be changed to compromise with the world. According to Jesus Christ, the majority of the world is going to hell, even many who profess to be Christians. If I am to be a faithful Christian, I cannot change God's word just to suit other people's opinion.

The word of God does not support women pastors. I trust the word of God over the word of sinful humans.

So, who are the sinful humans?

Women can preach, they just can't be pastors, because being a pastor is a position of authority, and the Bible says that women are not to have authority over men. The word of God should not be changed to compromise with the world. According to Jesus Christ, the majority of the world is going to hell, even many who profess to be Christians. If I am to be a faithful Christian, I cannot change God's word just to suit other people's opinion.

Are you saying the bible IS the word of God? In that case you have just completely ignored what others have said to you. I've gone and got a copy of the bible off my bookshelf (yes, even Atheists can have copies of it lying around)... and the very first few pages of it describe the history of that english version and how it has been translated to be better understood in todays society. That IS the bible, with words telling us that it's NOT the original words of scriptures. Why do you find that concept hard to comprehend?

All Love and Reiki Hugs

It's sad that you feel the way you do, as it just comes across as blatent discrimination towards other human beings... when in truth... christianity as I know it, certainly doesn't teach that one should judge others or discriminate in such a way.

What might look to some like discrimination, could be seen as discernment from the the view point of the one accused of discrimination... isn't it down to the free will and personal CHOICE of each individual?

Stephen, are you a politician? I only ask, because you have that politician trait of completely avoiding the point of discussion, or what people have said to you, to just keep saying what you want to say.

Either that or you really have received the words of God directly yourself?

All Love and Reiki Hugs

Freedom off speech - His CHOICE;)

Yes WS, it is down to choice. However the forums are for "discussion" and there is no discussion when a person chooses not to discuss, but only to preach, in which case the forums are not the correct place to be preaching.

All Love and Reiki Hugs

Yes WS, it is down to choice. However the forums are for "discussion" and there is no discussion when a person chooses not to discuss, but only to preach, in which case the forums are not the correct place to be preaching.

And what is the purpose of discussion, in your view? And where, in your view is the dividing line between firm personal opinion and preaching? In relation to Women in the early Christian church and the ordination of women bishops - or anything else (I'm attempting to stay on topic :D)?

I would say the purpose of discussion is to at least read and acknowledge what other people have said, and if you agree or disagree, at least say so, not just tell people they're wrong without any explanation why you think they're wrong or right and re-quote what you've said before as if people should just accept what you say, like some authority figure who should be respected (perhaps it's because Judy is a woman and can't teach males (apparently) that what she says should be ignored? ;)) whilst clearly showing that those people's posts haven't been read, and certainly not telling other people what they are/are not e.g. a liar or not a christian etc.

Of course there's no exact line, but there's certainly the extremes which would indicate to most people that a person is discussing things with others, or just preaching at others.

Perhaps if someone who is Male here, had been quoting that women should be able to be ordained as bishops, the response may have been different... as long as that man was a christian of course and not an Atheist it would seem.

All Love and Reiki Hugs

So, who are the sinful humans?

Are you saying the bible IS the word of God? In that case you have just completely ignored what others have said to you. I've gone and got a copy of the bible off my bookshelf (yes, even Atheists can have copies of it lying around)... and the very first few pages of it describe the history of that english version and how it has been translated to be better understood in todays society. That IS the bible, with words telling us that it's NOT the original words of scriptures. Why do you find that concept hard to comprehend?

All Love and Reiki Hugs

I'm afraid I will no longer reply to you because we're just going round in circles. Nothing you say is going to change my mind about the Bible, and every time you reply it seems you are looking for a reason to argue. Sorry, not my style. Reply if you want, but you will just be ignored.

Good day

I'm not the least bit interested in what Stephen 100 has to say, but could someone please explain to me why you are all bothering with this? If you keep picking at a scab it will never heal 🙂

I'm not the least bit interested in what Stephen 100 has to say, but could someone please explain to me why you are all bothering with this? If you keep picking at a scab it will never heal 🙂

You look a bit like a scab yourself in your pic 🙂

You look a bit like a scab yourself in your pic 🙂

MODERATORS

I am neither offended nor angered by this comment, but have not people been banned for less?

From The Forum Moderating Team

After several complaints, and a review by the moderating team, it has been decided to roll back this thread to an appropriate point, and appropriate action taken to help prevent further disruption to an otherwise interesting topic of discussion.

Please note that Stephen100 will no longer be taking part in this discussion.

**************************************************

Sniff, tear in the eye. I was getting fond of S100 :p

Back to topic. It's not just the Christian church having problems in female ordination. Last year the Buddhist Society of Western Australia got it in the neck for the FULL ordination of nuns (bhikkuni/s). So patriarchal beliefs are even in Buddhism: [url]Bhikkhuni Ordination Fallout - YouTube[/url]

RP

Yes, what a pity... :rolleyes: I've been watching this discussion with interest, but hadn't wanted to contribute till now, since it was all too obvious what was going to keep happening until Stephen was removed. Thanks, moderators, for your decisive action.

To add to the excellent points that other contributors have made, there are a few things I found out some years ago while doing a research project at university on how feminist historians are rediscovering the histories of women Christian leaders throughout the history of Christianity. I knew of some who've rocked the boat in more recent centuries, of course, but there were some things I learned, while researching and writing this assignment, that completely surprised me.

In her book In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins, Catholic feminist scholar Elizabeth Schussler Fiorenza discusses the Montanists, an early "heretical" group within the church whose doctrines were basically identical to those of what became the orthodoxy. The crucial difference was that the Montanists not only practised stricter asceticism, but gave female prophets equal leadership with men, and recorded these women's words as sacred texts.

Fiorenza notes that "Everything we know about the Montanist movement comes from very biased and often slanderous sources, since their own writings were ordered burned by an imperial edict in 398 CE." What's more, "The considerable body of anti-Montanist literature focuses its attack on the leadership of women in particular." (In Memory of Her, pp. 301-2) As an example, in the writings of Epiphanius, one of the early church fathers, there is a scathing reference to a "deluded woman" among the Montanist prophets who claimed that Christ had appeared to her "in the form of a woman" (Epiphanius, Panarion 49.1). If that woman's (and others') visions had been preserved in Christian scripture, how different might Christianity look today?

There was something else I found out that stunned me even more: another scholar, Gary Macy, published a study in 2008 called The Hidden History of Women's Ordination: Female Clergy in the Medieval West. In it, he shows there is "overwhelming" evidence that in the early Middle Ages, women in the medieval European Church were given formal ordination as deacons, bishops and even priests, and in at least some cases performed liturgical and administrative roles equivalent to those of their male counterparts. It was only during the so-called Gregorian Reform of the 12th and 13th centuries that theologians redefined ordination as something that only men could receive, and so history could be (and was) rewritten to argue that women could never have been "truly" ordained at all.

Here's a telling excerpt from Macy's book:

There was no shortage of evidence about ordained women and of secondary studies analysing this evidence. But the sources were dismissed as anomalies, and the studies that argued that women had been ordained were attacked or marginalised. Mostly, though, both were ignored. Few historians questioned, as I had not, the assumption that women had not, and could not have, been ordained in the Middle Ages. The memory of ordained women has been nearly erased, and where it survived it was dismissed as illusion, or worse, delusion. This was no accident of history. This is a history that has been deliberately forgotten, intentionally marginalised, and, not infrequently, creatively explained away. (The Hidden History of Women's Ordination, p. 4)

So you see how much we need to look below the surface of what is commonly accepted as "history" and "scriptural evidence"! :rolleyes:

Judy (Principled) made a reference earlier in this discussion to Harvard Divinity scholar Karen King's work on the Gospel of Mary. I won't quote it further, except to highly, highly recommend King's quite recent book The Gospel of Mary of Magdala: Jesus and the First Woman Apostle. It's very easy to read - unlike a lot of works by scholars! - and is absolutely fascinating. Whatever your faith tradition (if any), if you're interested in women's leadership in religion, how it has historically been suppressed, and what influences it could have on religious thought, this book is a must-read.

Charis :nature-smiley-008: