El Oso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

El Oso said:

---

Remind me again who wrote 2 Timothy 3:16. That would be the man in question on the women issue too. A born and highly trained Pharisee pre conversion. Someone who believed to his core he was better than us commoners and would refer to his elite knowledge of the Torah and Jewish history to prove he was right when he was indeed wrong. Remember all those disputes they got in with Jesus? As I noted earlier, I don't think all of his pre conversion thoughts disappeared at conversion. Believing women inferior to men is not a sin. It's a belief based on child rearing, education, and his career.

In modern times, many preachers have delivered a message on a Sunday they claimed came from God, and, in my opinion, missed the bigger point. The larger portions of Paul's letters deal with sin and improper behavior. These minor parts deal with leadership and deviate from Jesus leadership style that was inclusive of all genders.

I believe the same thing is happening here when it comes to church doctrine involving women.

Basically, you're saying Paul's right because he says he's right. That's a logical fallacy.

---

Christians don't say that Paul is right because "he says he's right". They believe he is right, because they believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God.

Which is why I asked you the question (which you danced around): do you believe Paul's words in the New Testament are the inspired word of God, or do you not?

If you wanna talk logic, then if what you're saying is true, that Paul contradicts Jesus, then there is only one logical conclusion from that: Paul is lying when he says these things are a command from the Lord (I Corinthians 14:36) and so Paul is a false apostle, and the New Testament is NOT the inspired word of God. Is this what you believe?

---

I did not dance around the question. I answered it. 2 Timothy 3:16 says it's all inspired by God. But the man that wrote that was a life long Pharisee and the gospels do a pretty good job of painting the Pharisees who really do not understand the scriptures at all. I made it pretty clear I think Paul fell into this trap: I'm right because damnit, I'm smarter than you are and I know the words of God better than you do. The OT views (the first five books) of women seem pretty clear with some outlier stories in later books. Saul (before Paul) would have known these five books, plus the prophets, better than almost anybody, and as noted, women came second in these books. But Jesus regularly demonstrated to all, especially the Pharisees, how knowing what these books said and knowing what they actually meant were two very different things. Again, this is exactly what I believe happened to Paul.

And you make another logical fallacy in this post (either or). There are actually multiple conclusions one could draw from what I wrote. I draw the one that says Paul is not lying in the way you and I want lying defined. Paul deeply believes women are inferior to men and should not assume leadership roles. He's not lying. He's just wrong.

He could still be wrong even being God inspired. Some preachers do it every Sunday. Their sermon was "God inspired," but it just misses the bigger picture or is wrong. I grew up a preacher's kid. I've met a ton of preachers in my life and was privy to conversations in my parent's living room between a group of pastors (the walls in the house weren't that thick, or as long as they weren't talking about an actual church member, I could sit in the room with them if I wanted to). They all said that as they looked back on their careers, there were messages they delivered fully believing they were right they no longer feel that way about. It's just what happens sometimes in all of our lives.

I believe that's exactly what is going on with Paul and his teachings on women. His Pharisee training was still too much of who he was and he just missed the mark when we compare what he wrote to these churches to what we see about Jesus and his ministry in the four gospels when it comes to the role of women.

---

So you believe that the New Testament is inspired - but it is not inerrant. It is the inspired, but errant, word of God. Correct?

Also, the "either/or" is not a fallacy. You are claiming that Paul's words, which he claims is a direct command from the Lord, contradicts the Lord. If Paul's words are true, then they can't be a contradiction - the Lord would be contradicting himself. If they ARE a contradiction, then it would necessarily mean that Paul's words are false, which would make him a false apostle. That is, unless you are saying Jesus is false too.

El Oso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

El Oso said:

---

Remind me again who wrote 2 Timothy 3:16. That would be the man in question on the women issue too. A born and highly trained Pharisee pre conversion. Someone who believed to his core he was better than us commoners and would refer to his elite knowledge of the Torah and Jewish history to prove he was right when he was indeed wrong. Remember all those disputes they got in with Jesus? As I noted earlier, I don't think all of his pre conversion thoughts disappeared at conversion. Believing women inferior to men is not a sin. It's a belief based on child rearing, education, and his career.

In modern times, many preachers have delivered a message on a Sunday they claimed came from God, and, in my opinion, missed the bigger point. The larger portions of Paul's letters deal with sin and improper behavior. These minor parts deal with leadership and deviate from Jesus leadership style that was inclusive of all genders.

I believe the same thing is happening here when it comes to church doctrine involving women.

Basically, you're saying Paul's right because he says he's right. That's a logical fallacy.

---

Christians don't say that Paul is right because "he says he's right". They believe he is right, because they believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God.

Which is why I asked you the question (which you danced around): do you believe Paul's words in the New Testament are the inspired word of God, or do you not?

If you wanna talk logic, then if what you're saying is true, that Paul contradicts Jesus, then there is only one logical conclusion from that: Paul is lying when he says these things are a command from the Lord (I Corinthians 14:36) and so Paul is a false apostle, and the New Testament is NOT the inspired word of God. Is this what you believe?

---

I did not dance around the question. I answered it. 2 Timothy 3:16 says it's all inspired by God.

---

So, you said it's a logical fallacy to say Paul's right because Paul said so.....

but then you you're saying Paul's words are indeed all inspired.... because Paul said so?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

El Oso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

El Oso said:

---

Remind me again who wrote 2 Timothy 3:16. That would be the man in question on the women issue too. A born and highly trained Pharisee pre conversion. Someone who believed to his core he was better than us commoners and would refer to his elite knowledge of the Torah and Jewish history to prove he was right when he was indeed wrong. Remember all those disputes they got in with Jesus? As I noted earlier, I don't think all of his pre conversion thoughts disappeared at conversion. Believing women inferior to men is not a sin. It's a belief based on child rearing, education, and his career.

In modern times, many preachers have delivered a message on a Sunday they claimed came from God, and, in my opinion, missed the bigger point. The larger portions of Paul's letters deal with sin and improper behavior. These minor parts deal with leadership and deviate from Jesus leadership style that was inclusive of all genders.

I believe the same thing is happening here when it comes to church doctrine involving women.

Basically, you're saying Paul's right because he says he's right. That's a logical fallacy.

---

Christians don't say that Paul is right because "he says he's right". They believe he is right, because they believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God.

Which is why I asked you the question (which you danced around): do you believe Paul's words in the New Testament are the inspired word of God, or do you not?

If you wanna talk logic, then if what you're saying is true, that Paul contradicts Jesus, then there is only one logical conclusion from that: Paul is lying when he says these things are a command from the Lord (I Corinthians 14:36) and so Paul is a false apostle, and the New Testament is NOT the inspired word of God. Is this what you believe?

---

I did not dance around the question. I answered it. 2 Timothy 3:16 says it's all inspired by God. But the man that wrote that was a life long Pharisee and the gospels do a pretty good job of painting the Pharisees who really do not understand the scriptures at all. I made it pretty clear I think Paul fell into this trap: I'm right because damnit, I'm smarter than you are and I know the words of God better than you do. The OT views (the first five books) of women seem pretty clear with some outlier stories in later books. Saul (before Paul) would have known these five books, plus the prophets, better than almost anybody, and as noted, women came second in these books. But Jesus regularly demonstrated to all, especially the Pharisees, how knowing what these books said and knowing what they actually meant were two very different things. Again, this is exactly what I believe happened to Paul.

And you make another logical fallacy in this post (either or). There are actually multiple conclusions one could draw from what I wrote. I draw the one that says Paul is not lying in the way you and I want lying defined. Paul deeply believes women are inferior to men and should not assume leadership roles. He's not lying. He's just wrong.

He could still be wrong even being God inspired. Some preachers do it every Sunday. Their sermon was "God inspired," but it just misses the bigger picture or is wrong. I grew up a preacher's kid. I've met a ton of preachers in my life and was privy to conversations in my parent's living room between a group of pastors (the walls in the house weren't that thick, or as long as they weren't talking about an actual church member, I could sit in the room with them if I wanted to). They all said that as they looked back on their careers, there were messages they delivered fully believing they were right they no longer feel that way about. It's just what happens sometimes in all of our lives.

I believe that's exactly what is going on with Paul and his teachings on women. His Pharisee training was still too much of who he was and he just missed the mark when we compare what he wrote to these churches to what we see about Jesus and his ministry in the four gospels when it comes to the role of women.

---

So you believe that the New Testament is inspired - but it is not inerrant. It is the inspired, but errant, word of God. Correct?

Also, the "either/or" is not a fallacy. You are claiming that Paul's words, which he claims is a direct command from the Lord, contradicts the Lord. If Paul's words are true, then they can't be a contradiction - the Lord would be contradicting himself. If they ARE a contradiction, then it would necessarily mean that Paul's words are false, which would make him a false apostle. That is, unless you are saying Jesus is false too.

---

I don't believe any of the Bible is inerrant. My world would not come to an end science proved (and I think it has) there were not seven 24 hour periods of time in which the world was created. I don't think Jonah spent three days in the belly of a whale (fine, great fish). There are a plethora of other examples, but hopefully, you get the point. There's more to the story. I'm thinking yours might.

Paul says it is the Lord's command, but is it? I'm struggling to find a verse in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John where Jesus says, women should remain silent and let us men handle the teachings of God. Maybe you can tell me where this command is.

So no--the Lord is not contradicting himself because he never said what Paul said he said. That is unless you can find a red letter verse in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John that for some reason nobody has bothered to drop in this conversation yet because that would be the ultimate trump card in this conversation.

And no--Paul isn't lying either. He's mixing what he was taught as a Pharisee with a ministry he wasn't present for, and teaching what he believes to be true.

El Oso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

El Oso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

El Oso said:

---

Remind me again who wrote 2 Timothy 3:16. That would be the man in question on the women issue too. A born and highly trained Pharisee pre conversion. Someone who believed to his core he was better than us commoners and would refer to his elite knowledge of the Torah and Jewish history to prove he was right when he was indeed wrong. Remember all those disputes they got in with Jesus? As I noted earlier, I don't think all of his pre conversion thoughts disappeared at conversion. Believing women inferior to men is not a sin. It's a belief based on child rearing, education, and his career.

In modern times, many preachers have delivered a message on a Sunday they claimed came from God, and, in my opinion, missed the bigger point. The larger portions of Paul's letters deal with sin and improper behavior. These minor parts deal with leadership and deviate from Jesus leadership style that was inclusive of all genders.

I believe the same thing is happening here when it comes to church doctrine involving women.

Basically, you're saying Paul's right because he says he's right. That's a logical fallacy.

---

Christians don't say that Paul is right because "he says he's right". They believe he is right, because they believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God.

Which is why I asked you the question (which you danced around): do you believe Paul's words in the New Testament are the inspired word of God, or do you not?

If you wanna talk logic, then if what you're saying is true, that Paul contradicts Jesus, then there is only one logical conclusion from that: Paul is lying when he says these things are a command from the Lord (I Corinthians 14:36) and so Paul is a false apostle, and the New Testament is NOT the inspired word of God. Is this what you believe?

---

I did not dance around the question. I answered it. 2 Timothy 3:16 says it's all inspired by God. But the man that wrote that was a life long Pharisee and the gospels do a pretty good job of painting the Pharisees who really do not understand the scriptures at all. I made it pretty clear I think Paul fell into this trap: I'm right because damnit, I'm smarter than you are and I know the words of God better than you do. The OT views (the first five books) of women seem pretty clear with some outlier stories in later books. Saul (before Paul) would have known these five books, plus the prophets, better than almost anybody, and as noted, women came second in these books. But Jesus regularly demonstrated to all, especially the Pharisees, how knowing what these books said and knowing what they actually meant were two very different things. Again, this is exactly what I believe happened to Paul.

And you make another logical fallacy in this post (either or). There are actually multiple conclusions one could draw from what I wrote. I draw the one that says Paul is not lying in the way you and I want lying defined. Paul deeply believes women are inferior to men and should not assume leadership roles. He's not lying. He's just wrong.

He could still be wrong even being God inspired. Some preachers do it every Sunday. Their sermon was "God inspired," but it just misses the bigger picture or is wrong. I grew up a preacher's kid. I've met a ton of preachers in my life and was privy to conversations in my parent's living room between a group of pastors (the walls in the house weren't that thick, or as long as they weren't talking about an actual church member, I could sit in the room with them if I wanted to). They all said that as they looked back on their careers, there were messages they delivered fully believing they were right they no longer feel that way about. It's just what happens sometimes in all of our lives.

I believe that's exactly what is going on with Paul and his teachings on women. His Pharisee training was still too much of who he was and he just missed the mark when we compare what he wrote to these churches to what we see about Jesus and his ministry in the four gospels when it comes to the role of women.

---

So you believe that the New Testament is inspired - but it is not inerrant. It is the inspired, but errant, word of God. Correct?

Also, the "either/or" is not a fallacy. You are claiming that Paul's words, which he claims is a direct command from the Lord, contradicts the Lord. If Paul's words are true, then they can't be a contradiction - the Lord would be contradicting himself. If they ARE a contradiction, then it would necessarily mean that Paul's words are false, which would make him a false apostle. That is, unless you are saying Jesus is false too.

---

I don't believe any of the Bible is inerrant. My world would not come to an end science proved (and I think it has) there were not seven 24 hour periods of time in which the world was created. I don't think Jonah spent three days in the belly of a whale (fine, great fish). There are a plethora of other examples, but hopefully, you get the point. There's more to the story. I'm thinking yours might.

Paul says it is the Lord's command, but is it? I'm struggling to find a verse in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John where Jesus says, women should remain silent and let us men handle the teachings of God. Maybe you can tell me where this command is.

So no--the Lord is not contradicting himself because he never said what Paul said he said. That is unless you can find a red letter verse in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John that for some reason nobody has bothered to drop in this conversation yet because that would be the ultimate trump card in this conversation.

And no--Paul isn't lying either. He's mixing what he was taught as a Pharisee with a ministry he wasn't present for, and teaching what he believes to be true.

---

But necessarily, if the Lord is not contradicting himself, and if Paul IS contradicting the Lord, then it means Paul is false when he says it was a command from the Lord. Which would make him a false apostle, correct? And if that's true, then necessarily it means the New Testament can NOT be the inspired word of God. Correct?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

So, you said it's a logical fallacy to say Paul's right because Paul said so.....

but then you you're saying Paul's words are indeed all inspired.... because Paul said so?

---

I didn't say that. I said the person who actually said scripture is the inspired word of God (2 Timothy 3:16) just so happens to be the guy who says women shouldn't preach. Seems pretty convenient.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

But necessarily, if the Lord is not contradicting himself, and if Paul IS contradicting the Lord, then it means Paul is false when he says it was a command from the Lord. Which would make him a false apostle, correct?

---

As soon as you post the Bible verse where Jesus said women can't be preachers (or something proximity close to that), I can answer this question. But I know you can't, so I will anyway.

No--it does not make Paul a false prophet. It makes Paul wrong on this issue, but that doesn't make him a false prophet in total. All prophets are human. All humans make mistakes. On the whole, I think most of Paul's teachings align with the gospels. On this issue, I think they don't. So he's not a false prophet. He made a claim and then doubled down on it with a statement we don't seem to have in our four gospels. He's wrong, but he's human, and still a pretty decent person post conversion, so we just disagree.

There's also the possibility Jesus actually said it, nobody bothered to write it down in the gospels but they all knew he said it and taught it to the new followers, so Paul's right and I'm wrong. I don't think so, but it is possible.

El Oso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

So, you said it's a logical fallacy to say Paul's right because Paul said so.....

but then you you're saying Paul's words are indeed all inspired.... because Paul said so?

---

I didn't say that. I said the person who actually said scripture is the inspired word of God (2 Timothy 3:16) just so happens to be the guy who says women shouldn't preach. Seems pretty convenient.

---

Didn't Peter in his epistle call Paul's writings inspired Scripture, just like all the other Scriptures?

Maybe you are falling into the error Peter describes in 2 Peter 3:16 - ".....just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction."

El Oso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

But necessarily, if the Lord is not contradicting himself, and if Paul IS contradicting the Lord, then it means Paul is false when he says it was a command from the Lord. Which would make him a false apostle, correct?

---

As soon as you post the Bible verse where Jesus said women can't be preachers (or something proximity close to that), I can answer this question. But I know you can't, so I will anyway.

No--it does not make Paul a false prophet. It makes Paul wrong on this issue, but that doesn't make him a false prophet in total. All prophets are human. All humans make mistakes. On the whole, I think most of Paul's teachings align with the gospels. On this issue, I think they don't. So he's not a false prophet. He made a claim and then doubled down on it with a statement we don't seem to have in our four gospels. He's wrong, but he's human, and still a pretty decent person post conversion, so we just disagree.

There's also the possibility Jesus actually said it, nobody bothered to write it down in the gospels but they all knew he said it and taught it to the new followers, so Paul's right and I'm wrong. I don't think so, but it is possible.

---

No, sorry, you must not understand what a false apostle is. If he claims to have been given a command or word from the Lord, but it wasn't from the Lord, then it would make him a false apostle.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

El Oso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

So, you said it's a logical fallacy to say Paul's right because Paul said so.....

but then you you're saying Paul's words are indeed all inspired.... because Paul said so?

---

I didn't say that. I said the person who actually said scripture is the inspired word of God (2 Timothy 3:16) just so happens to be the guy who says women shouldn't preach. Seems pretty convenient.

---

Didn't Peter in his epistle call Paul's writings inspired Scripture, just like all the other Scriptures?

Maybe you are falling into the error Peter describes in 2 Peter 3:16 - ".....just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction."

---

I think you highlighted the wrong part of that verse. This is the important part: "according to the wisdom given him." As I have repeatedly said, preachers ascend the pulpit every Sunday with the wisdom given to them, and get it wrong. I think Paul is wrong.

I freely admit there are parts of scripture that are hard to understand. I've said Paul made this exact mistake numerous times. His education and career taught him women were inferior to men. Jesus lived a life that said that wasn't true. Paul wasn't there for it, but he'd heard about it. Then he met the guy in a blinding encounter. But he just couldn't get past his education and career on this issue because it was too hard for him to understand.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

1 Timothy 2:11-12


New International Version



11 A woman[a] should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;[b] she must be quiet.

seems pretty cut and dry

---

/cut and dried? No
Matthew 28 Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.5 The angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. 6 He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. 7 Then go quickly and tell his disciples: 'He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.' Now I have told you."

8 So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples.

These women are the first to witness the Jesus death and the resurrection, they were by the spirit of God to share the good news.
God entrusted these who not defect Jesus like the male disciples. The women are first at the tomb in all the gospels and given the power to share the good news. God gave them the power.

---

Actually, those women were NOT the first at the tomb and the first to share the good news:

Mark 16:5-7 : "And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe, and they were alarmed. And he said to them, "Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen; he is not here. See the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you."

---

But apparently they did tell the disciples and went on to Galileo because that's where Jesus said he would meet them. The witness of the other three gospels of also in the cage that the women was the first to tell the resurrection.

---

The weird thing about this is that you don't believe Jesus was physically raise I believe in Paul's description which you cannot seem to reconcile with your dogma yet I am scriptural. Prove me wrong.

you believe the whole story is made up - yet you're basing your argument for women preachers off of a biblical account that you don't think ever really happened in the first place. This is your strawman and it is false. How else can I make it clear if you reject even Paul's interpretation of the resurrection?

---

Jesus was raised with a body appropriate to resurrection. See I Corinthians 15:The Resurrection Body
35 But someone will ask, "How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?" 36 You foolish person! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37 And what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain. 38 But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body. 39 For not all flesh is the same, but there is one kind for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish. 40 There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is of one kind, and the glory of the earthly is of another. 41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory.
42 So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. 43 It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. 44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.
Paul is pretty clear about an appropriate body for resurrection of the dead.

El Oso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

El Oso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

So, you said it's a logical fallacy to say Paul's right because Paul said so.....

but then you you're saying Paul's words are indeed all inspired.... because Paul said so?

---

I didn't say that. I said the person who actually said scripture is the inspired word of God (2 Timothy 3:16) just so happens to be the guy who says women shouldn't preach. Seems pretty convenient.

---

Didn't Peter in his epistle call Paul's writings inspired Scripture, just like all the other Scriptures?

Maybe you are falling into the error Peter describes in 2 Peter 3:16 - ".....just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction."

---

I think you highlighted the wrong part of that verse. This is the important part: "according to the wisdom given him." As I have repeatedly said, preachers ascend the pulpit every Sunday with the wisdom given to them, and get it wrong. I think Paul is wrong.

I freely admit there are parts of scripture that are hard to understand. I've said Paul made this exact mistake numerous times. His education and career taught him women were inferior to men. Jesus lived a life that said that wasn't true. Paul wasn't there for it, but he'd heard about it. Then he met the guy in a blinding encounter. But he just couldn't get past his education and career on this issue because it was too hard for him to understand.

---

Preachers who ascend the pulpit every Sunday did not write the New Testament. Christianity is based on the fully inspired, written word of God in the NT. So the question before you is still: if Paul is wrong, then how can the New Testament be the inspired word of God? It can't. If it can, then what else is wrong in the New Testament that we should know about?

El Oso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

No, sorry, you must not understand what a false apostle is. If he claims to have been given a command or word from the Lord, but it wasn't from the Lord, then it would make him a false apostle.

---

You are free to set the standard where you want. I do not set it there.

Also, as a point of order, in 1 Corinthians 14:34-38, Paul doesn't say he was given this command. He just says it exists.

As I have said, I don't think it does. I know it doesn't in our four gospels as they exist in my NIV and KJV editions, but I also don't think those gospels recorded everything Jesus actually said.

---

It's not my standard. It's a standard in of itself. Also, the standard for prophets was that if anything they said was not true or did not actually come to pass, then they are a false prophet. The standard should also apply to an apostle of Jesus Christ.

If you are saying that one can claim to have been given a word from the Lord to teach but you really didn't, that it does NOT make you a false apostle, well, you've pretty much opened a whole can of destructive worms into Christianity. What you are promoting is a very false and anti-Christian belief.

El Oso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

No, sorry, you must not understand what a false apostle is. If he claims to have been given a command or word from the Lord, but it wasn't from the Lord, then it would make him a false apostle.

---

Also, as a point of order, in 1 Corinthians 14:34-38, Paul doesn't say he was given this command. He just says it exists.

---

No, he clearly states that what he's writing to them is from the Lord: "If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord."

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

1 Timothy 2:11-12


New International Version



11 A woman[a] should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;[b] she must be quiet.

seems pretty cut and dry

---

/cut and dried? No
Matthew 28 Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.5 The angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. 6 He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. 7 Then go quickly and tell his disciples: 'He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.' Now I have told you."

8 So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples.

These women are the first to witness the Jesus death and the resurrection, they were by the spirit of God to share the good news.
God entrusted these who not defect Jesus like the male disciples. The women are first at the tomb in all the gospels and given the power to share the good news. God gave them the power.

---

Actually, those women were NOT the first at the tomb and the first to share the good news:

Mark 16:5-7 : "And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe, and they were alarmed. And he said to them, "Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen; he is not here. See the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you."

---

But apparently they did tell the disciples and went on to Galileo because that's where Jesus said he would meet them. The witness of the other three gospels of also in the cage that the women was the first to tell the resurrection.

---

The weird thing about this is that you don't believe Jesus was physically raise I believe in Paul's description which you cannot seem to reconcile with your dogma yet I am scriptural. Prove me wrong.

you believe the whole story is made up - yet you're basing your argument for women preachers off of a biblical account that you don't think ever really happened in the first place. This is your strawman and it is false. How else can I make it clear if you reject even Paul's interpretation of the resurrection?

---

Jesus was raised with a body appropriate to resurrection. See I Corinthians 15:The Resurrection Body
35 But someone will ask, "How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?" 36 You foolish person! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37 And what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain. 38 But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body. 39 For not all flesh is the same, but there is one kind for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish. 40 There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is of one kind, and the glory of the earthly is of another. 41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory.
42 So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. 43 It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. 44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.
Paul is pretty clear about an appropriate body for resurrection of the dead.

---

Whatever the nature of Jesus' resurrection body was, the Gospels clearly indicate it was able to be SEEN, HEARD, TOUCHED, and able to EAT FOOD.

This would all indicate a physical component to his body, otherwise none of this would have been possible. Combine that with the fact that the testimony of the women was that Jesus' body was not in the tomb, and that his resurrection body had the wounds Jesus sustained during his torture and crucifixion - it means that Jesus' body at death was the same body that rose again.

El Oso said:

---

I think too many people are misunderstanding what is being said. The oldest Christian religion a.k.a. the Roman catholic church allows and expects women to play a significant role, but there are no women in the upper hierarchy of the church.

Influential Catholic women have included theologians, abbesses, monarchs, missionaries, martyrs, scientists, nurses, hospital administrators, educationalists, religious sisters, Doctors of the Church, and canonised saints.

Paul appears to be admonishing Timothy that (1) women should not hold authoritative office in the local church that involves apostolic and doctrinal teaching; and (2) it has absolutely nothing to do with social norms whether it might be considered appropriate or inappropriate for female to hold such an authoritative position over a congregation nor does it have to do with ability - Rather, the matter is settled because of the creation ordinance. Adam came first and therefore no woman should have authority over man.

To this day, his words are in place as part of the Catholic church. Women are a vital part of each congregation yet no woman holds the principal position of authoritative doctrinal teaching.

---

I think the Pope, especially the current one, is one of the most incredible people in the world. In that mythical five people dinner list we all have--he's #1 on my list of five. I'd almost rather it just be him and I and I'm not catholic. I don't always like his answers, but I enjoy listening to them and thinking about them.

El Oso said:

---

I'm not catholic, so I would probably grossly misrepresent things, but I do understand the Popes view that their are roles for men (priests, bishops, etc.) and roles for women (nuns). Again, not catholic but I attend catholic church far more often than a protestant one at this point in my life, but it would not bother me to see a nun give a homily. I might be one of a few present who would not have an immediate heart attack.

---

I've heard many Catholic women speak in public that I would rather hear give a homily than many priests that I've heard throughout the course of my life. But they never will. I, a man, will never be able to give a homily at a mass. Why, because I am a layman. Homilies are reserved for those ordained men - bishops, priests, and deacons.

El Oso said:

---

I've also noticed that at some catholic churches, I see women read from the Bible from the stage during the mass and others, I still haven't seen a woman on the stage. Same for communion too (like on Easter Sunday) when attendance is overflowing and multiple rows are used for communion instead of the main aisle. But again, these are acts of service so to speak and not instruction.

---

After the Second Vatican Council (i.e Vatican II) was completed in the late 60's, the Church made some changes to include the laity in mass. In principle, these changes were great. In execution, they have been poorly done by many. One of the changes was to allow mass to be performed in the common vernacular. My whole life, I've been to mass in English.

One of the other changes, (besides have the priests now face versus populum (facing the people opposed to ad orientum (to the east, leading the people), is to allow the lay people to participate more in the celebration of the mass. Now lay people could read the first and second readings and psalms. The reading of the Gospel will ALWAYS be reserved for the ordained bishop, priest, or deacon.

El Oso said:

---

I'm not sure the creation story established hierarchy of the genders either. I put very little scientific value in the creation story. It's comparable to a Greek myth--here's a story that probably isn't "true" about how the world came to be, but truth isn't the point--the point is trying to help us understand what we really cannot begin to fathom. I do not believe in a literal Adam and Eve. I definitely don't believe in a literal seven days (especially if they were 24 hours long each). I could be wrong, but I digress.

---

According the Church, the first 11 books of Genesis are not considered to a be a science book. They provide theological truths using symbolic and figurative language affirming primordial events with central truths.

One is free to believe in a 6-day creation or a 14-billion year creation.

El Oso said:

---

I definitely believe the order has been used by society to establish a hierarchy of gender.

---

The Church does not profess a hierarchy of genders. According to the bible, men and women are equal in dignity and worth, as both are created in the image and likeness of God. However, the Church also acknowledges distinct roles for men and women, particularly in the context of the sacrament of Holy Orders.Only men can be ordained as priests, following the example of Jesus Christ, who chose male apostles .This distinction does not imply inequality but rather a difference in roles within the Church's mission.Both men and women are called to holiness and can serve the Church in various capacities, such as religious life, lay ministry, and other forms of service.

El Oso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

El Oso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

El Oso said:

---

Remind me again who wrote 2 Timothy 3:16. That would be the man in question on the women issue too. A born and highly trained Pharisee pre conversion. Someone who believed to his core he was better than us commoners and would refer to his elite knowledge of the Torah and Jewish history to prove he was right when he was indeed wrong. Remember all those disputes they got in with Jesus? As I noted earlier, I don't think all of his pre conversion thoughts disappeared at conversion. Believing women inferior to men is not a sin. It's a belief based on child rearing, education, and his career.

In modern times, many preachers have delivered a message on a Sunday they claimed came from God, and, in my opinion, missed the bigger point. The larger portions of Paul's letters deal with sin and improper behavior. These minor parts deal with leadership and deviate from Jesus leadership style that was inclusive of all genders.

I believe the same thing is happening here when it comes to church doctrine involving women.

Basically, you're saying Paul's right because he says he's right. That's a logical fallacy.

---

Christians don't say that Paul is right because "he says he's right". They believe he is right, because they believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God.

Which is why I asked you the question (which you danced around): do you believe Paul's words in the New Testament are the inspired word of God, or do you not?

If you wanna talk logic, then if what you're saying is true, that Paul contradicts Jesus, then there is only one logical conclusion from that: Paul is lying when he says these things are a command from the Lord (I Corinthians 14:36) and so Paul is a false apostle, and the New Testament is NOT the inspired word of God. Is this what you believe?

---

I did not dance around the question. I answered it. 2 Timothy 3:16 says it's all inspired by God. But the man that wrote that was a life long Pharisee and the gospels do a pretty good job of painting the Pharisees who really do not understand the scriptures at all. I made it pretty clear I think Paul fell into this trap: I'm right because damnit, I'm smarter than you are and I know the words of God better than you do. The OT views (the first five books) of women seem pretty clear with some outlier stories in later books. Saul (before Paul) would have known these five books, plus the prophets, better than almost anybody, and as noted, women came second in these books. But Jesus regularly demonstrated to all, especially the Pharisees, how knowing what these books said and knowing what they actually meant were two very different things. Again, this is exactly what I believe happened to Paul.

And you make another logical fallacy in this post (either or). There are actually multiple conclusions one could draw from what I wrote. I draw the one that says Paul is not lying in the way you and I want lying defined. Paul deeply believes women are inferior to men and should not assume leadership roles. He's not lying. He's just wrong.

He could still be wrong even being God inspired. Some preachers do it every Sunday. Their sermon was "God inspired," but it just misses the bigger picture or is wrong. I grew up a preacher's kid. I've met a ton of preachers in my life and was privy to conversations in my parent's living room between a group of pastors (the walls in the house weren't that thick, or as long as they weren't talking about an actual church member, I could sit in the room with them if I wanted to). They all said that as they looked back on their careers, there were messages they delivered fully believing they were right they no longer feel that way about. It's just what happens sometimes in all of our lives.

I believe that's exactly what is going on with Paul and his teachings on women. His Pharisee training was still too much of who he was and he just missed the mark when we compare what he wrote to these churches to what we see about Jesus and his ministry in the four gospels when it comes to the role of women.

---

So you believe that the New Testament is inspired - but it is not inerrant. It is the inspired, but errant, word of God. Correct?

Also, the "either/or" is not a fallacy. You are claiming that Paul's words, which he claims is a direct command from the Lord, contradicts the Lord. If Paul's words are true, then they can't be a contradiction - the Lord would be contradicting himself. If they ARE a contradiction, then it would necessarily mean that Paul's words are false, which would make him a false apostle. That is, unless you are saying Jesus is false too.

---

I don't believe any of the Bible is inerrant.....

---

That's not what Jesus believed (or knew, rather.) He said every "jot and tittle" of the Law and Prophets were to be fulfilled.

I take it you're not a Christian. At least the beliefs you're espousing definitely aren't.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

El Oso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

No, sorry, you must not understand what a false apostle is. If he claims to have been given a command or word from the Lord, but it wasn't from the Lord, then it would make him a false apostle.

---

Also, as a point of order, in 1 Corinthians 14:34-38, Paul doesn't say he was given this command. He just says it exists.

---

No, he clearly states that what he's writing to them is from the Lord: "If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord."

---

Then please, point out that command as given by Jesus in the four gospels. I've never found it, and as I said earlier, no one here has either or this thread would have ended a long time ago.

As I have argued from the beginning, Paul is giving a thought deeply rooted in his Pharisee upbringing, and while not directly stated in the first five books of the Bible, can absolutely be inferred from those stories and laws. He's mixing things together and I believe drawing a flawed conclusion.

But I'm neither a literalists or an inerrantist, so you and I will not see this the same way.

If Paul preached that Jesus had not raised from the dead, he would be a false prophet. But he wasn't a prophet to start with, so that also helps keep him from being a false prophet.

I think he's wrong on the role of women, and I find nothing in the gospels that support his conclusions.

You have an oddly weird, and unbiblical definition of Christianity then.

Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved.

The definition ends there. Nothing in it about inerrancy, literalism, fundamentalism, dogmatism, or anything else.

And this is where I always bail when talking to many "christians," so enjoy the rest of your day.

To save time, this post focuses on your last comment.

I've heard the Pope say that same thing in several different ways. I understand it. Part of me thinks he's right, the other part of me just doesn't agree that certain genders can only perform certain roles. As much as I buy it, I just can't buy it completely.

El Oso said:

---

To save time, this post focuses on your last comment.

I've heard the Pope say that same thing in several different ways. I understand it. Part of me thinks he's right, the other part of me just doesn't agree that certain genders can only perform certain roles. As much as I buy it, I just can't buy it completely.

---

Being a (Catholic) priest is NOT about performing certain roles. It's not about preaching the word. It's not about motivating a congregation. It's not about managing a parish business office. It's not about giving pastoral advice.

Many women are more than capable of this. I know many women that could do better at this than some priests that I've met.

A couple complexities exists with the priesthood.

First, Christ called MEN to be his apostles. Not women. Jesus wasn't sexist. He wasn't afraid to upset societal norms (let the children come, dining with sinners/tax collectors, speaking with Gentile women, etc.) We can't go back up the mountain and change the law. Also other religions at the time did have priestesses. So he could have if he wanted too.

Why did he call only men? We have to look at the very beginning and end of the bible. What do we see? We bookend marriages. In Genesis, the first marriage of man and woman. The two will become one flesh. We look at the last book, Revelation. We see have heavenly wedding feast of the Lamb.

Who is getting married? Christ.

Who is he marrying? The Church.

Christ is the bridegroom, and we, the body (his Church) are the bride.

What do the priests in the OT do? They offer sacrifice to God. What do today's priests do? They offer a representation of the once-and-for-sacrifice every time they say mass. When a priests says the words of consecration, he is acting In persona Christi, in the person of Christ.

A woman cannot act in the person of Christ because she cannot be the bridegroom wedded to the bride, his Church. A woman cannot marry a woman.

El Oso said:

---

But I'm neither a literalists or an inerrantist, so you and I will not see this the same way.

---

I believe you have to clarify what you mean by inerrant.

We mean that it is free from error in matters of faith and morals as intended by God. The Church teaches that the Scriptures are inspired by the Holy Spirit and convey truth for our salvation. This does not mean every detail is scientifically or historically accurate by modern standards, but that it faithfully teaches what God wants us to know for our salvation.

Coke Bear said:

---

El Oso said:

---

But I'm neither a literalists or an inerrantist, so you and I will not see this the same way.

---

I believe you have to clarify what you mean by inerrant.

We mean that it is free from error in matters of faith and morals as intended by God. The Church teaches that the Scriptures are inspired by the Holy Spirit and convey truth for our salvation. This does not mean every detail is scientifically or historically accurate by modern standards, but that it faithfully teaches what God wants us to know for our salvation.

---

There are obvious errors in historical accuracy and scientific detail by modern standards, but that is a discussion for another thread for those who do not agree with me.

Free from error in matters of faith: yes. However, some of these verses are often interpreted in different ways and our disagreements divide us but have no impact on our faith but in our demonstration of that faith, we have differences.

Free from error in matters of morals: it depends. I do not believe that a person has to believe in what the Bible says, or even that God exists let alone that he sent his son to die for man's salvation, to be a moral person. I also believe that many people use the Bible to excuse their behaviors that can be immoral or make themselves out to be better people than they are or who they are engaging with. Technically speaking, their behavior may be moral, but I do not believe it to be based on my reading of that scripture.

I believe Paul is wrongly saying this is a commandment of Jesus. That doesn't make Paul a liar. It doesn't make him a false prophet, and it doesn't mean I can toss the Bible in the trash because of this one mistake.

El Oso said:

---

Free from error in matters of faith: yes. However, some of these verses are often interpreted in different ways and our disagreements divide us but have no impact on our faith but in our demonstration of that faith, we have differences.

---

This is why we have a magisterium to help us with these difficult passages. This is why the Ethiopian Eunuch needed someone to help him interpret the scriptures - Acts 8:26-40.

El Oso said:

---

Free from error in matters of morals: it depends. I do not believe that a person has to believe in what the Bible says, or even that God exists let alone that he sent his son to die for man's salvation, to be a moral person. I also believe that many people use the Bible to excuse their behaviors that can be immoral or make themselves out to be better people than they are or who they are engaging with. Technically speaking, their behavior may be moral, but I do not believe it to be based on my reading of that scripture.

---

We are discussing is the bible inerrant in matters of morals. This claim doesn't mean that one needs the bible to be moral nor does it state that people wont distort the morals of the bible. People throughout history have used the bible to justify slavery, same-sex attractions, abortion, etc.

El Oso said:

---

I believe Paul is wrongly saying this is a commandment of Jesus. That doesn't make Paul a liar. It doesn't make him a false prophet, and it doesn't mean I can toss the Bible in the trash because of this one mistake.

---

This is where we depart. How could the Holy Spirit guide every author of each book in inerrant scripture, but yet allow Paul to preach one teaching that is wrong (according to your belief)?

Is it possible that you are misunderstanding this passage?

I've recommended the following book, Hard Saying - A Catholic Approach to Answering Bible Difficulties by Trent Horn. I just checked my copy and he does address these passages.

Finally, how could God allow His book to be written with errors? If so, the Bible is no better than the Qur'an or the Book of Mormon.

This is where we depart. How could the Holy Spirit guide every author of each book in inerrant scripture, but yet allow Paul to preach one teaching that is wrong (according to your belief)?

Mainly, because Paul wasn't writing the Bible when he wrote his letters. His letters were to churches offering his advice on how to handle the issues they were facing. I would argue Paul never thought he was writing scripture, but the church leaders liked his ideas so much that over time they became "doctrine" and were included in the Bible by the canonization process which is a whole other debate on how "holy spirit inspired" that process was. In a very long story short (and hotly debated), we have the canon not because men choose it but because men could not stop these books from being recognized as inspired. No council declared the books to be inspired. That's Paul in the aforementioned 2 Timothy 3:16. However, I think he was referring to three specific things here, not his letters.

Paul said scripture was God inspired, but I definitely don't think he was talking about his letters when he references scripture. We make that reference because his letters are now in the Bible. I think he was talking about the Torah, the writings of the prophets, and ketuvim in 2 Timothy 3:!6.

The indications Paul didn't think he was writing scripture just letters :
To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her.1st Corinthians 7:12 (ESV) (This is damn near heretical in some circles where you should only marry someone of your same religion. A fairly prominent Baptist teaching when I was a kid. You're the Catholic, so I will defer to you, in order for me to marry a Catholic it is preferred that I a)am baptized as a Christian before the marriage takes place, b)the marriage must be given "permission" by a competent authority, and c)I must be aware of the Catholic promises. Our marriage would not be recognized or given permission if I was "an unbeliever.")

Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you.1st Corinthians 11:2 (ESV) (He's passing down traditions that were passed down to him--not scripture. By the way, the concept of no leadership for women was a very established tradition of the Pharisees.)

As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.Galatians 1:8-9 (ESV) (He's advocating the gospel as truth, not his letters. There is no reference to women not preaching in the four gospels.)

There's a lot more, but you should see the bigger point.

El Oso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

El Oso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

No, sorry, you must not understand what a false apostle is. If he claims to have been given a command or word from the Lord, but it wasn't from the Lord, then it would make him a false apostle.

---

Also, as a point of order, in 1 Corinthians 14:34-38, Paul doesn't say he was given this command. He just says it exists.

---

No, he clearly states that what he's writing to them is from the Lord: "If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord."

---

Then please, point out that command as given by Jesus in the four gospels. I've never found it, and as I said earlier, no one here has either or this thread would have ended a long time ago.

As I have argued from the beginning, Paul is giving a thought deeply rooted in his Pharisee upbringing, and while not directly stated in the first five books of the Bible, can absolutely be inferred from those stories and laws. He's mixing things together and I believe drawing a flawed conclusion.

But I'm neither a literalists or an inerrantist, so you and I will not see this the same way.

---

If Paul's writing is not a command from the Lord as he claims, then he is a false apostle. It's as simple as that. I don't know why it even needs to be explained why. That's the problem before you. If Paul is compromised and not telling the truth, how can you trust anything else about his message, namely that salvation being by grace through faith in Jesus is true?

You don't seem to realize what a compromised New Testament does to Christianity. It's quite alarming.

El Oso said:

---

You have an oddly weird, and unbiblical definition of Christianity then.

Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved.

The definition ends there. Nothing in it about inerrancy, literalism, fundamentalism, dogmatism, or anything else.

And this is where I always bail when talking to many "christians," so enjoy the rest of your day.

---

Yes, believing on the Lord Jesus Christ is the essence of Christianity. But what if I tell you that a person in these threads claims to believe exactly that for his "salvation", but when you delve into his beliefs, you find out these:

- he doesn't believe God created the heavens and the earth.
- he doesn't believe God is supernatural
- he doesn't believe Jesus performed any miracles
- he doesn't believe Jesus physically rose from the dead

*Hint: it's someone you called a "clown" earlier in the thread because of his errant beliefs. Anyway, such a belief resume certainly would put a claim of "believing in Jesus" under question, wouldn't it? If the fruits of that belief lead to the set of beliefs like those listed, then their "Christianity" can certainly be doubted, can't it? And it wouldn't be "unbiblical" to do so.

I don't know what your beliefs are. I only suspected you weren't a Christian because of the way you undermine the authority of the New Testament. It's certainly possible for true Christians to be misguided and believe in unchristian things, though.

El Oso said:

---

If Paul preached that Jesus had not raised from the dead, he would be a false prophet. But he wasn't a prophet to start with, so that also helps keep him from being a false prophet.

I think he's wrong on the role of women, and I find nothing in the gospels that support his conclusions.

---

You keep using the word "prophet" when it's "apostle", btw.

Question - do you believe Christians should allow same sex marriage?

Quote:

---

And this is where I always bail when talking to many "christians," so enjoy the rest of your day.

---

I think you bail because ultimately you know you are not on solid ground.

Since we're talking about contradicting Jesus.....

do you acknowledge, though, that Jesus did in fact affirm the inerrancy of the Law and Prophets, which is contradictory to your belief, "I don't believe any of the bible is inerrant"?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

El Oso said:

---

If Paul preached that Jesus had not raised from the dead, he would be a false prophet. But he wasn't a prophet to start with, so that also helps keep him from being a false prophet.

I think he's wrong on the role of women, and I find nothing in the gospels that support his conclusions.

---

You keep using the word "prophet" when it's "apostle", btw.

Question - do you believe Christians should allow same sex marriage?

---

What do you mean "allow" ? In their family, in their church, in their state, in their nation?

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

El Oso said:

---

If Paul preached that Jesus had not raised from the dead, he would be a false prophet. But he wasn't a prophet to start with, so that also helps keep him from being a false prophet.

I think he's wrong on the role of women, and I find nothing in the gospels that support his conclusions.

---

You keep using the word "prophet" when it's "apostle", btw.

Question - do you believe Christians should allow same sex marriage?

---

What do you mean "allow" ? In their family, in their church, in their state, in their nation?

---

I mean into their church, mainly. With regard to family members, the state, or nation I do think Christians shouldn't "allow" it in the sense that they should similarly oppose it. Truth is truth no matter the context. The difference being while they can have influence over them, ultimately they can't control the state or individual choices. But they do have say over their own church doctrine and policies.

El Oso said:

---

Mainly, because Paul wasn't writing the Bible when he wrote his letters. His letters were to churches offering his advice on how to handle the issues they were facing. I would argue Paul never thought he was writing scripture, but the church leaders liked his ideas so much that over time they became "doctrine" and were included in the Bible by the canonization process which is a whole other debate on how "holy spirit inspired" that process was. In a very long story short (and hotly debated), we have the canon not because men choose it but because men could not stop these books from being recognized as inspired. No council declared the books to be inspired. That's Paul in the aforementioned 2 Timothy 3:16. However, I think he was referring to three specific things here, not his letters.

---

Actually, the canon of scripture was affirmed at the Council of Rome (AD 382), the Synod of Hippo (AD 393), two of the Councils of Carthage (AD 397 and 419), the Council of Florence (AD 14311449) and finally, as an article of faith, by the Council of Trent (AD 15451563).

The some of the selection criteria for the canon were whether the scriptures were read in the Church and if they were congruent with the teachings of Christ.

A great book that discusses this is called The Bible is a Catholic Book by Jimmy Akin.

El Oso said:

---

Paul said scripture was God inspired, but I definitely don't think he was talking about his letters when he references scripture. We make that reference because his letters are now in the Bible. I think he was talking about the Torah, the writings of the prophets, and ketuvim in 2 Timothy 3:!6.

---

I would agree with you to an extent on this. When Paul is discussing the scriptures in 2 Tim, he is absolutely discussing the OT scriptures. It was the Church that affirmed which writings were divinely inspired.

El Oso said:

---

The indications Paul didn't think he was writing scripture just letters :
To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her.1st Corinthians 7:12 (ESV) (This is damn near heretical in some circles where you should only marry someone of your same religion. A fairly prominent Baptist teaching when I was a kid. You're the Catholic, so I will defer to you, in order for me to marry a Catholic it is preferred that I a)am baptized as a Christian before the marriage takes place, b)the marriage must be given "permission" by a competent authority, and c)I must be aware of the Catholic promises. Our marriage would not be recognized or given permission if I was "an unbeliever.")

---

Not really sure of your point here, but essentially, if a Catholic marries an unbaptized person they must obtain a dispensation from the local bishop "from a disparity of cult". This would be considered a natural marriage, but not a sacramental marriage. Without this dispensation, the marriage is not valid.

When the unbaptized person is baptized, the marriage becomes sacramental.

El Oso said:

---

Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you.1st Corinthians 11:2 (ESV) (He's passing down traditions that were passed down to him--not scripture. By the way, the concept of no leadership for women was a very established tradition of the Pharisees.)

---

Not sure of your point here. What do you mean by "leadership"? There were NO women in rabbinical leadership until the 1930's. This includes that Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, etc.

El Oso said:

---

As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.Galatians 1:8-9 (ESV) (He's advocating the gospel as truth, not his letters. There is no reference to women not preaching in the four gospels.)

---

Is it possible that there is no reference to women because women were not rabbis?

Finally, define "leadership roles." At my parish we have a woman business manager, a woman Director of Religious ed, a woman that is Asst, Director of Teen Education, a woman Director of Mother's Day Out, etc.

Sister Raffaella Petrini, is the number two position in the governorship of Vatican City.

Women can do many things in a parish. They just can't be be priests for the reasons that I mentioned in the previous post: Jesus didn't do it and women cannot stand In Persona Christi.

Sunday sermons are not scripture.