Yes, we all do many different things, fill many roles, wear many hats. We should all be allowed the same opportunities.
Well, I’ve yet to see that and I do not accept that any gender-based roles in the bible are prescriptive. Where do you see in the bible such roles, which you think apply to us thousands of years later in a completely different society? And what are these roles?
Gender: Yes, they exist but they don’t suggest roles restricted to each gender - except for reproduction.
Race: No, race does not exist biologically. It’s a human construct based on ideas that have been proven inferior. We all belong to one species. There are no human sub-species. Scientists from UNESCO pointed this out almost 70 years ago:
I don’t know what that means.
No, it’s not just my opinion. It’s also sound logic. Since there are no true gender-specific roles, pushing the idea that there are is nonsensical.
I agree with you when you said that it was not an across the board directive. This is precisely why I always say that we have to consider the entire context to know what the text is saying.
Also, we want to let the Bible teach us and not try to make it say what it doesn’t say (and it is not easy as we all have biases).
For example, we know that a woman who is a prophetess can speak in the church. But, conversely, does the fact that a prophetess can speak in church means that every woman can also? Of course not.
So, the context matter.
Now, concerning Phoebe, Junia, and Priscilla, we have to be careful here.
Phoebe is mentioned only once in the New Testament in Romans 16:1 and it is said that she was a servant of the church (the Greek term used diakonos). The text doesn’t say she was preaching or teaching. In fact, Romans 16:2 says that she has been a succourer (other translations say: patroness, someone who helps) of many. A verb of the same root as diakonos is used in Luke 8:3 where speaking of women who ministered (diakoneo) to Jesus. So, considering the context, and Paul indicating that she had been a succourer of many, it is more appropriate to think that Phoebe was someone who had ministered to people in general, and to Paul in particular.
Concerning Junia, again, we have only one reference in the New Testament and not much is said about her activities. The only thing we know is that she was “of note” among the apostles. This doesn’t mean automatically that she was an apostle. Anyway, nothing in the text says that she was teaching or preaching.
As for Priscilla, every time she is mentioned, she is mentioned with her husband. So, in 1 Cor 16:19 the text doesn’t say that she was a church leader: In this verse, we read:
“The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house.”
So, the verse says that Aquila and Priscilla had church in their house, not that Priscilla was the leader of that church. For all what we know, Aquila could have been the leader of that church, even if the church was meeting in their house.
Also, the text of Acts 18:26 says that Aquila and Priscilla explained the way of God to Apollos but the verse doesn’t say it was a church situation. In fact, the NIV says: “When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately” while some other versions use the expression: “they took him aside” (for example NLT, ESV, NAS,). But regardless, in this situation, we don’t see Priscilla occupying a teaching position in the church but rather her and her husband having a personal Bible study with Apollos (“they took him aside”).
In summary, nothing in the Bible indicates, for sure, that the three women that you mentioned were leaders in the church or people having any authority though they certainly were active and had ministries in the church.
Considering what I said above, we can see that Paul’s prohibitions don’t contradict what he said concerning the involvement of women in the church. It is because we pick and choose what we want according to our preconceived ideas that we end up facing contradictions. But if we take everything on a particular subject in the Bible then the contradictions generally disappear.
Has nobody heard of ADOPTION??
Christ Adopted the Father.
The Father Adopted Christ.
As St. Patrick believed in 670 [as recorded] by Tirechan.
"God has a Son who is co-eternal with himself. And similar in all
respects to himself. And neither is the Son younger than the Father.
Nor is the Father older than the Son.
And the Holy Spirit breathes in them.
And the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are inseparable. AMEN.
HOW is “Father, Son, Holy Spirit” DEMEANING TO THE TRINITY?
That is the way it is listed in Matthew 28:19.
IS Matthew “demeaning” to the Trinity there?
There IS NO HIERACHY there. It is ONLY a list of Names of Person
in the GodHead. And has been used for centuries BASED on
If we are to believe the words of Paul, Paul says it was
CHRIST who followed the Israelites for 40 years in the
This would make Christ the One on Mt. Sinai.
This would make Christ who was the Shekinah.
“GOD” through time has acted as BOTH Mother AND Father.
This is why modern thought has seen no reason WHY GOD
shouldn’t be addressed as EITHER Mother and Father.
I was responding to Menssana who used the terms to place them into a Hierarchy and used the concept of Hierarchy to support suppression of anyone other than a male. Look at my first response, post #66.
…and I do. More oft refter to God in the female term, but I do use both depending on the conversation, situation, person/s that I am speaking with.
I believe Paul. I have no problem with the traditional, mainstream namings of God. I, personally, am not willing to limit God to being nothing other than that, nothing bigger than that. I don’t fully understand the extent of detail that is currently missing, for cause. There is an overwhelming education that will take place during our “infinity and beyond” existence.
“passages from Paul that purport to the contrary reflect his cultural views”
This is the sole argument the progressives have. And if admitted it is fatal to all Christian doctrine. Once the scriptures are made subservient to every wind of worldly fashion there will be nothing left. We have seen this kind of biblical criticism for centuries and we know exactly where it leads; empty doctrines, empty hearts, and empty churches.
Yet again, there is not one single sound scriptural argument for the ordination of women in the church. There is not a single woman who can meet the criteria specified for the offices of elder, deacon or bishop (what we call a “pastor”).
Not all the hand-waving nor emoting can erase these plain words.
For example, in John 14:28 Jesus said: “…I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.”
So Jesus is God, He has the same nature as Father, but God the Father is higher in rank, in position.
Where do you have information about God from, if not from what He revealed Himself, in the Bible? God made us in His image, and now we return the favor and make Him in our image? A religion based on our opinions and “logic” (which is based on nothing, if you discard the revelation), is a useless nonsense.
We are not limiting God, we address Him as HE commanded and we believe what HE said. Nothing more, nothing less.
You don’t understand, but you are sure women should be ordinated and God should be addressed “in the female term”…
Then let’s keep things as they were, let’s obey what God commanded, let’s address God as He told us to address Him, let’s behave like God created us and when the time comes, we’ll see.then how we’ll be educated.