Coke Bear said:

---

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.

---

Realitybites said:

---

Sunday sermons are not scripture.

---

El Oso said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

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.

---

Your question was how could God inspire Paul with bad information. Your mixing in Catholic doctrine and history with my answer.

That was my long answer. The short answer was/is Paul wasn't writing scriptures he was writing letters. In those letters he said scriptures were inspired and we confuse what he meant since today his letters are considered our scripture. They definitely weren't his.

I don't need to define anything in those verses because I wasn't using them to prove anything about dogma or the original issue in this thread about women and their church roles. I was using them to show that Paul didn't think he was writing scripture. Since he wasn't writing scripture, the letters don't have to meet the inspired by God standard the Torah, the prophets, and kelvium have to meet in order to be valid.

Thus, Paul's statements on women are the traditions he knew well and not mandated from God that apply to 2024 and the rest of time.

But since, according to your version of canonization (which isn't truncated nearly as heavily as mine) says scripture chosen had to match the teachings of Christ, where exactly in the four gospels do we see any notion of any teaching that women are anything less than equal to men?

It's the trump card on this issue no one has yet to play.

---

El Oso said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Sunday sermons are not scripture.

---

Neither were/are Paul's letters. Paul would have defined Scripture as the Torah, the prophets and kelvium. I made a very long post on this.

---

El Oso said:

---

Your question was how could God inspire Paul with bad information. Your mixing in Catholic doctrine and history with my answer.

That was my long answer. The short answer was/is Paul wasn't writing scriptures he was writing letters. In those letters he said scriptures were inspired and we confuse what he meant since today his letters are considered our scripture. They definitely weren't his.

I don't need to define anything in those verses because I wasn't using them to prove anything about dogma or the original issue in this thread about women and their church roles. I was using them to show that Paul didn't think he was writing scripture. Since he wasn't writing scripture, the letters don't have to meet the inspired by God standard the Torah, the prophets, and kelvium have to meet in order to be valid.

---

El Oso said:

---

Thus, Paul's statements on women are the traditions he knew well and not mandated from God that apply to 2024 and the rest of time.

But since, according to your version of canonization (which isn't truncated nearly as heavily as mine) says scripture chosen had to match the teachings of Christ, where exactly in the four gospels do we see any notion of any teaching that women are anything less than equal to men?

---

El Oso said:

---

I wouldn't say you've ever argued they aren't equal. But I do reject the notion that women and men play different roles in the church. They can, and often do, but there is nothing in scripture that dictates this. Leadership or otherwise.

The advice, teaching , doctrine, whatever someone wants to call it, from Paul that women should remain silent in ridiculous and based on his training as a Pharisee and not on the teachings and behaviors of Jesus.

---

El Oso said:

---

Anything a man can do in a church a woman can do as well.

---

El Oso said:

---

It's not scripture and his letters weren't that to him either.

---

El Oso said:

---

And Job never happened. It's a retelling of a Mesopotamian poem. But its actual occurrence isn't the point. It's like a parable. The authenticity of the story isn't the big picture lesson I'm supposed to learn from it.

Innocent suffering exists, and despite my human nature to the contrary, I am not entitled to know why.

---

Coke Bear said:

---

El Oso said:

---

And Job never happened. It's a retelling of a Mesopotamian poem. But its actual occurrence isn't the point. It's like a parable. The authenticity of the story isn't the big picture lesson I'm supposed to learn from it.

Innocent suffering exists, and despite my human nature to the contrary, I am not entitled to know why.

---

I've never said that it did happen. Having said that, both Jews and Christians call the Book of Job divinely inspired.

---

El Oso said:

---

I don't need to define leadership. If a man can be it, so can a woman. From the Pope all the way down to the bottom. We both know it won't go that way though. You pick the Bible based religion, and I would say the same about its hierarchical structure. Therefore I don't need to define leadership. If a man can do it, a woman can too.

Leadership roles are not gender specific. Outside of Paul, there's nothing in the Bible that says gender matters. And Paul isn't scripture using that term the way he would have when he wrote what he wrote.

Biblical? That's up to interpretation and we obviously have different interpretations of what Paul meant.

---

Quote:

---

Leadership roles are not gender specific. Outside of Paul, there's nothing in the Bible that says gender matters.

---

El Oso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

Leadership roles are not gender specific. Outside of Paul, there's nothing in the Bible that says gender matters.

---

Well, all except for the fact that in the beginning God's divine order of creation was man==>woman==>children, God ordained Hebrew society to be patriarchal, God is referred to as "Father" and with male gender pronouns, priests were only men, Jesus was a man, and his twelve disciples/apostles were only men.

Up to this point, you've only merely stated that Paul's view contradicts Jesus, but you haven't really supported your case. Considering the above, how exactly is Paul's view contradictory to God and Jesus?

---

There's a lot of painting with broad strokes here. Which, in my opinion, makes a lot wrong here. I'll go through it briefly, and then I will tap out of this discussion with you. You crossed a line earlier and while we could have had a thoughtful give and take as I did with Coke Bear, you chose to make a determination about my salvation, and as I pointed out then, anyone who has read the Bible just one time knows you don't get to make that call.

1. Just because man was created first doesn't mean man was at the top of the hierarchy. It's an easy inference to make, but I don't make it. I think this inference is faulty even though I see why people make it. Genesis 1:26 indicates to me mankind was to rule over the world together as one, not the male bossing everybody around. Genesis 2:24 seems to reiterate this idea by describing a man and a woman who marry as one flesh. ie men and women are equal. That's my take. You can conclude what you will.

2. God is referred to with masculine pronouns, but he's really a spirit. I think he's genderless since he's a spirit. The American National Council of Churches' Inclusive Language Lectionary, which many Protestant churches belong to, states that God cannot be regarded as having gender, race, or color, so they appear to think what I think here. That doesn't make us right, so you do you.

And Coke Bear made need to jump in here and correct me since I am not Catholic, but Catholic teaching and practice often refer to God using masculine pronouns, even though the Church also holds that God has no literal sex because God is spirit and doesn't have a body. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that God is "neither man nor woman: he is God". However, the Catholic Church also refers to the Holy Spirit as "He" in English liturgical texts, though the Holy See directs that the established gender usage of each language be maintained.

3. Priests--yes. Prophets no. Using the terms as they are used in the OT, a priest represents the people to God and a prophet represents God to the people. Since I'm a protestant and not a Catholic, and definitely not a Hebrew, --I don't need a priest.

Protestants don't need to confess to a priest because we believe we can go straight to the source without a priest. We desire a preacher (prophet) to represent God to us so we can grow spiritually. That means a prophet would have a lot in common with a modern day preacher. Here's why that's important. Rabinic sources identify seven female prophets. Sarah, Miriam, Deborah, Hannah, Huldah, Abigail, and Esther. In the Bible, a prophet is a person who speaks for God or a deity, or by divine inspiration. That sounds an awful lot like a modern day pastor to me, so now we have seven women preachers in the OT, but again, you do you.

4. Did God really ordain Hebrew society to be patriarchal? A woman actually ruled over the Hebrews once, not only sharing with them the word of God but leading them in battle. You can check out her story in Judges 4-5. She's the prophet Deborah I referenced in the last paragraph. When you read her story, don't glaze over the part where she was married while she did all of this which really flips your hierarchy on its head (why wasn't this role given to her husband if men hold the top rank in the Hebrew society?). And definitely don't glaze over the part where her male general was too scared to go into battle without her.

Incredibly interesting bit of Bible trivia: only two people in the OT simultaneously held the role of prophet and judge. Deborah and Samuel. And the woman did it first. If man being created first set the hierarchy of male female--what in the world are we to make of a woman doing this before a man? I make out what I have said from the beginning--anything a man can do in the church--a woman can do too..

5. The twelve disciples were men yes, but they were only a small subset of his actual disciples. There's over 70 disciples in Luke 10. There are at least 500 by Luke 22/Acts 1. We get a lot of there only being 12 from the way Matthew, Mark, and John tell the story, but if you look at the way Luke tells the story, something slightly different happens. Luke 6:!3 mentions the 12 disciples, but then things take an interesting turn in chapter 8.

Soon afterward [Jesus] went on through cities and villages, proclaiming and bringing the good news of the kingdom of God. And the twelve were with him, and also some women who had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities: Mary, called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, and Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod's household manager, and Susanna, and many others, who provided for them out of their means. (Luke 8:13)

Mary not only travels with Jesus during his ministry, she serves the entire group. Jesus taught his followers again and again that serving others is intrinsic to discipleship. She also plays a critical role in testifying to Jesus's resurrection. These things make her a disciple in my opinion.

Joana actually puts her life in danger to follow Jesus. Did you catch the part where she's married to Herod's household manager? That's the same Herod who cut off John the Baptist's head. I get the idea she helped Luke a lot writing his gospel because he's coming in long after the stories took place. She lived them. She's representing God's story to a man. That would make her a preacher using the definitions above..

I don't know anything about Susana worth mentioning here, but the phase many others, to me, means those over 500 I talked about earlier, quite a few had to be women. These women are constantly serving Jesus and their fellow disciples. This makes them disciples in my opinion, but you do you.

I repeatedly said in my posts that Jesus elevated the women he surrounded himself with to equal roles with the men. Paul wasn't there for this and relied on tradition and Pharisee teaching when discussing the role of women.

I think he's wrong when he writes what he writes to the church. But you do you.

Coke Bear's right--we beat this horse to death. But for the most part it was fun and educational.

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

El Oso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

Leadership roles are not gender specific. Outside of Paul, there's nothing in the Bible that says gender matters.

---

Well, all except for the fact that in the beginning God's divine order of creation was man==>woman==>children, God ordained Hebrew society to be patriarchal, God is referred to as "Father" and with male gender pronouns, priests were only men, Jesus was a man, and his twelve disciples/apostles were only men.

Up to this point, you've only merely stated that Paul's view contradicts Jesus, but you haven't really supported your case. Considering the above, how exactly is Paul's view contradictory to God and Jesus?

---

There's a lot of painting with broad strokes here. Which, in my opinion, makes a lot wrong here. I'll go through it briefly, and then I will tap out of this discussion with you. You crossed a line earlier and while we could have had a thoughtful give and take as I did with Coke Bear, you chose to make a determination about my salvation, and as I pointed out then, anyone who has read the Bible just one time knows you don't get to make that call.

1. Just because man was created first doesn't mean man was at the top of the hierarchy. It's an easy inference to make, but I don't make it. I think this inference is faulty even though I see why people make it. Genesis 1:26 indicates to me mankind was to rule over the world together as one, not the male bossing everybody around. Genesis 2:24 seems to reiterate this idea by describing a man and a woman who marry as one flesh. ie men and women are equal. That's my take. You can conclude what you will.

2. God is referred to with masculine pronouns, but he's really a spirit. I think he's genderless since he's a spirit. The American National Council of Churches' Inclusive Language Lectionary, which many Protestant churches belong to, states that God cannot be regarded as having gender, race, or color, so they appear to think what I think here. That doesn't make us right, so you do you.

And Coke Bear made need to jump in here and correct me since I am not Catholic, but Catholic teaching and practice often refer to God using masculine pronouns, even though the Church also holds that God has no literal sex because God is spirit and doesn't have a body. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that God is "neither man nor woman: he is God". However, the Catholic Church also refers to the Holy Spirit as "He" in English liturgical texts, though the Holy See directs that the established gender usage of each language be maintained.

3. Priests--yes. Prophets no. Using the terms as they are used in the OT, a priest represents the people to God and a prophet represents God to the people. Since I'm a protestant and not a Catholic, and definitely not a Hebrew, --I don't need a priest.

Protestants don't need to confess to a priest because we believe we can go straight to the source without a priest. We desire a preacher (prophet) to represent God to us so we can grow spiritually. That means a prophet would have a lot in common with a modern day preacher. Here's why that's important. Rabinic sources identify seven female prophets. Sarah, Miriam, Deborah, Hannah, Huldah, Abigail, and Esther. In the Bible, a prophet is a person who speaks for God or a deity, or by divine inspiration. That sounds an awful lot like a modern day pastor to me, so now we have seven women preachers in the OT, but again, you do you.

4. Did God really ordain Hebrew society to be patriarchal? A woman actually ruled over the Hebrews once, not only sharing with them the word of God but leading them in battle. You can check out her story in Judges 4-5. She's the prophet Deborah I referenced in the last paragraph. When you read her story, don't glaze over the part where she was married while she did all of this which really flips your hierarchy on its head (why wasn't this role given to her husband if men hold the top rank in the Hebrew society?). And definitely don't glaze over the part where her male general was too scared to go into battle without her.

Incredibly interesting bit of Bible trivia: only two people in the OT simultaneously held the role of prophet and judge. Deborah and Samuel. And the woman did it first. If man being created first set the hierarchy of male female--what in the world are we to make of a woman doing this before a man? I make out what I have said from the beginning--anything a man can do in the church--a woman can do too..

5. The twelve disciples were men yes, but they were only a small subset of his actual disciples. There's over 70 disciples in Luke 10. There are at least 500 by Luke 22/Acts 1. We get a lot of there only being 12 from the way Matthew, Mark, and John tell the story, but if you look at the way Luke tells the story, something slightly different happens. Luke 6:!3 mentions the 12 disciples, but then things take an interesting turn in chapter 8.

Soon afterward [Jesus] went on through cities and villages, proclaiming and bringing the good news of the kingdom of God. And the twelve were with him, and also some women who had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities: Mary, called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, and Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod's household manager, and Susanna, and many others, who provided for them out of their means. (Luke 8:13)

Mary not only travels with Jesus during his ministry, she serves the entire group. Jesus taught his followers again and again that serving others is intrinsic to discipleship. She also plays a critical role in testifying to Jesus's resurrection. These things make her a disciple in my opinion.

Joana actually puts her life in danger to follow Jesus. Did you catch the part where she's married to Herod's household manager? That's the same Herod who cut off John the Baptist's head. I get the idea she helped Luke a lot writing his gospel because he's coming in long after the stories took place. She lived them. She's representing God's story to a man. That would make her a preacher using the definitions above..

I don't know anything about Susana worth mentioning here, but the phase many others, to me, means those over 500 I talked about earlier, quite a few had to be women. These women are constantly serving Jesus and their fellow disciples. This makes them disciples in my opinion, but you do you.

I repeatedly said in my posts that Jesus elevated the women he surrounded himself with to equal roles with the men. Paul wasn't there for this and relied on tradition and Pharisee teaching when discussing the role of women.

I think he's wrong when he writes what he writes to the church. But you do you.

Coke Bear's right--we beat this horse to death. But for the most part it was fun and educational.

---

How in the WORLD is it "crossing the line" to question whether someone is a Christian if they are undermining the authority of the New Testament? What's worse is that you're even asserting your own authority to the truth over that from the apostle Paul. And it's off base for me to doubt you?

Besides, didn't you do a very similar thing by referring to me as a "christian" in quotations? Did I pout and run away? By the way- if anything is an impediment to the kind of fruitful back and forth discussion you desire, it'd be employing a preemptive avoidance strategy by indicating that you're going to "bail" or "tap out" after you throw in your two cents worth, like you keep doing.

To your points:
- I'm sorry, but nothing you've argued shows that Paul's view was contradictory to God and Jesus. Citing the rare exception does not dismantle the norm that Hebrew society and religion was patriarchal. Arguing this is simply being dishonest. God's creation order is significant. Your only attempt at downplaying it is through denial. The point about God being referred to in the masculine was not to suggest that God was an actual male but that it is significant that God chose to reveal Himself to us in that manner rather than in the feminine, or in its own gender. You conceded that priests were only male, and you had no answer for that - kinda important, since we're talking about roles in the church. Sure, there were female prophets, but no major ones and besides, the question isn't whether women can prophesy or not (the NT does not prohibit women from prophesying). Yes, there were very important and faithful women disciples, but none were part of Jesus' inner circle, and the fact that the male disciples were referred to as "the Twelve" and that in Revelation the foundation of the New Jerusalem is named after them should clearly signify their special significance over that of the other disciples. And of course, the most important figure of them all, the Messiah, was a man, the Son of God, not the Daughter of God.

To come away with the idea that "outside of Paul there's nothing in the Bible that says gender matters" after all that, is simply not being honest and faithful to the bible. It's not letting the bible reveal its own truth, instead it's trying to extract what you want to be true from the bible. This has ultimately forced you to the very unfortunate (and unnecessary) conclusion that Paul is simply wrong. The inescapable implication from that, then, is that the New Testament can not be the inspired word of God. And so now, you have what you want - women preachers - but ironically you've destroyed the very foundation of truth from which they are to preach from.

---

ScottS said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

INDIANAPOLIS (AP) Southern Baptists narrowly rejected a proposal Wednesday to enshrine a ban on churches with women pastors in their constitution after opponents argued it was unnecessary because the denomination already has a way of ousting such churches.
The measure received support from 61% of the delegates, but it failed to get the required two-thirds supermajority. The action reversed a preliminary vote last year in favor of the official ban.
But it still leaves the Southern Baptist Convention with its official doctrinal statement saying the office of pastor is limited to men. Even the opponents of the ban said they favored that doctrinal statement but didn't think it was necessary to reinforce it in the constitution.
Opponents noted that the SBC already can oust churches that assert women can serve as pastors as it did last year and again Tuesday night. AP

God calls whom God wants to call -- gender does not matter

---

Why do you care? You are not Southern Baptist.

Now do Islam.

---

Everyone knows if 1947 makes the rules abortion and trans surgeries would be performed in churches.

---

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 raised; 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.

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

His argument that God isn't a biological male or female is ridiculous. Truly an intellectually dishonest attempt to overlook the fact that God clearly chose to reveal himself in the masculine.

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

His argument that God isn't a biological male or female is ridiculous. Truly an intellectually dishonest attempt to overlook the fact that God clearly chose to reveal himself in the masculine.

---

Men and women are equal in dignity, but are different and have different roles.

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

His argument that God isn't a biological male or female is ridiculous. Truly an intellectually dishonest attempt to overlook the fact that God clearly chose to reveal himself in the masculine.

---

He is correct technically with respect to God having no gender.

As you know, God is simple and has no parts.

Correct that God has revealed himself as male.

Having said that, I feel that he has misapplied those truths to fit his narrative.

Men and women are equal in dignity, but are different and have different roles.

---

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 raised; 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.

---

what is really weird is that you made up those lies? You are full fallacies

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

His argument that God isn't a biological male or female is ridiculous. Truly an intellectually dishonest attempt to overlook the fact that God clearly chose to reveal himself in the masculine.

---

He is correct technically with respect to God having no gender.

As you know, God is simple and has no parts.

Correct that God has revealed himself as male.

Having said that, I feel that he has misapplied those truths to fit his narrative.

Men and women are equal in dignity, but are different and have different roles.

---

Yes that is why I used the term intellectually dishonest. He knows that nobody is claiming that God is a biological male, while very intentionally omitting that God reveals himself to us in the masculine. And by doing so he intentionally misrepresents church position and beliefs.

---

El Oso said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

His argument that God isn't a biological male or female is ridiculous. Truly an intellectually dishonest attempt to overlook the fact that God clearly chose to reveal himself in the masculine.

---

He is correct technically with respect to God having no gender.

As you know, God is simple and has no parts.

Correct that God has revealed himself as male.

Having said that, I feel that he has misapplied those truths to fit his narrative.

Men and women are equal in dignity, but are different and have different roles.

---

Yes that is why I used the term intellectually dishonest. He knows that nobody is claiming that God is a biological male, while very intentionally omitting that God reveals himself to us in the masculine. And by doing so he intentionally misrepresents church position and beliefs.

---

Not exactly. Check out Genesis chapter 2 (God's very first introduction to man). You will notice throughout the text, it says the LORD God. That all capitalization LORD is important in Hebrew. It's mentioned in scripture more than any other name of God. About 6,000 times. It means Jehovah. I AM. It's the most sacred name. A Jew would not have used this name because of the power it contains and a crowd almost stoned Jesus when he used it (John 8:58-59). It's the exact same what God was introduced to Abraham (Genesis 12), Moses (Exodus 3), and multiple other OT characters.

Back to those meanings of LORD when you see it in the Bible: "I am who (I) am", "I will become what I choose to become", "I am what I am", "I will be what I will be", "I create what(ever) I create", or "I am the Existing One"

Can you point out the gender identification in God's revelation to man? I can't find it anywhere in the Hebrew (which I don't read or speak, so I asked people who learned it in seminary and do) or in the English translations of that phrase which I have listed above.

Assigning God the gender of a man was a man made construct not a revelation of God himself.

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

El Oso said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

His argument that God isn't a biological male or female is ridiculous. Truly an intellectually dishonest attempt to overlook the fact that God clearly chose to reveal himself in the masculine.

---

He is correct technically with respect to God having no gender.

As you know, God is simple and has no parts.

Correct that God has revealed himself as male.

Having said that, I feel that he has misapplied those truths to fit his narrative.

Men and women are equal in dignity, but are different and have different roles.

---

Yes that is why I used the term intellectually dishonest. He knows that nobody is claiming that God is a biological male, while very intentionally omitting that God reveals himself to us in the masculine. And by doing so he intentionally misrepresents church position and beliefs.

---

Not exactly. Check out Genesis chapter 2 (God's very first introduction to man). You will notice throughout the text, it says the LORD God. That all capitalization LORD is important in Hebrew. It's mentioned in scripture more than any other name of God. About 6,000 times. It means Jehovah. I AM. It's the most sacred name. A Jew would not have used this name because of the power it contains and a crowd almost stoned Jesus when he used it (John 8:58-59). It's the exact same what God was introduced to Abraham (Genesis 12), Moses (Exodus 3), and multiple other OT characters.

Back to those meanings of LORD when you see it in the Bible: "I am who (I) am", "I will become what I choose to become", "I am what I am", "I will be what I will be", "I create what(ever) I create", or "I am the Existing One"

Can you point out the gender identification in God's revelation to man? I can't find it anywhere in the Hebrew (which I don't read or speak, so I asked people who learned it in seminary and do) or in the English translations of that phrase which I have listed above.

Assigning God the gender of a man was a man made construct not a revelation of God himself.

---

My God, are you also now saying that the entire Old Testament isn't the revealed word of God either, but rather a man made construct like Paul's epistles? Your bible is getting pretty thin, no? And you want us to believe you're a Christian??

So then, who is this "Jesus" that you purportedly believe in? Because if he is a direct revelation of God in the flesh, as he himself claims, then "every jot and tittle" of the Law and Prophets is affirmed as the direct revelation of God, where there are countless references to God in the masculine. Not to mention that Jesus himself even referred to God as "Father" and directs us to do the same in prayer.

Seriously, who do you think you are kidding with this??

---

El Oso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

El Oso said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

His argument that God isn't a biological male or female is ridiculous. Truly an intellectually dishonest attempt to overlook the fact that God clearly chose to reveal himself in the masculine.

---

He is correct technically with respect to God having no gender.

As you know, God is simple and has no parts.

Correct that God has revealed himself as male.

Having said that, I feel that he has misapplied those truths to fit his narrative.

Men and women are equal in dignity, but are different and have different roles.

---

Yes that is why I used the term intellectually dishonest. He knows that nobody is claiming that God is a biological male, while very intentionally omitting that God reveals himself to us in the masculine. And by doing so he intentionally misrepresents church position and beliefs.

---

Not exactly. Check out Genesis chapter 2 (God's very first introduction to man). You will notice throughout the text, it says the LORD God. That all capitalization LORD is important in Hebrew. It's mentioned in scripture more than any other name of God. About 6,000 times. It means Jehovah. I AM. It's the most sacred name. A Jew would not have used this name because of the power it contains and a crowd almost stoned Jesus when he used it (John 8:58-59). It's the exact same what God was introduced to Abraham (Genesis 12), Moses (Exodus 3), and multiple other OT characters.

Back to those meanings of LORD when you see it in the Bible: "I am who (I) am", "I will become what I choose to become", "I am what I am", "I will be what I will be", "I create what(ever) I create", or "I am the Existing One"

Can you point out the gender identification in God's revelation to man? I can't find it anywhere in the Hebrew (which I don't read or speak, so I asked people who learned it in seminary and do) or in the English translations of that phrase which I have listed above.

Assigning God the gender of a man was a man made construct not a revelation of God himself.

---

My God, are you also now saying that the entire Old Testament isn't the revealed word of God either, but rather a man made construct like Paul's epistles? Your bible is getting pretty thin, no? And you want us to believe you're a Christian??

So then, who is this "Jesus" that you purportedly believe in? Because if he is a direct revelation of God in the flesh, as he himself claims, then "every jot and tittle" of the Law and Prophets is affirmed as the direct revelation of God, where there are countless references to God in the masculine. Not to mention that Jesus himself even referred to God as "Father" and directs us to do the same in prayer.

Seriously, who do you think you are kidding with this??

---

I'm struggling to see how you drew that conclusion from anything I wrote at all.

My entire post dealt with the issue of whether or not God revealed himself to man as a man or whether man put the gender construct of male on God as was the current topic of conversation/commenting by TinFoil and Coke Bear. The writers in the passages I referenced described God's initial introduction to man in Genesis 2, his introduction to Abraham (Genesis 12), and his introduction to Moses (Exodus 3). I avoided the other 5,997 uses of the LORD God in the Old Testament for the sake of brevity. These uses of LORD God directly refute your claim that there are countless references to God in the masculine. LORD God means I AM. Period. It is incredibly important that we pay attention to the way Lord, LORD, lord are spelled throughout the entire Bible. Each means something very different in the Hebrew passages.

Yes, the prevailing thought among people is God is male--but that's something we do that goes against what the scriptures (the Torah, the prophets, and ketvium) do if we read them closely and in the language they were originally written. God introduced himself to Adam as I AM and then continued that introduction to many others.

In those revelations I used in my post, God simply said I AM. Then I told people what that name actually means. It's the most sacred name that exists for God in the Hebrew language and Jewish traditions and there is absolutely no gender construct in that name in the Hebrew language. If there is, please point it out. Here it is again: Back to those meanings of LORD when you see it in the Bible: "I am who (I) am", "I will become what I choose to become", "I am what I am", "I will be what I will be", "I create what(ever) I create", or "I am the Existing One." There is absolutely no gender identifier in there anywhere that I can find.

Therefore, I deduced that God is genderless and man gave him masculine qualities (more on this in the next paragraphs). Admittedly, I almost always use the pronoun he as well. But the reality is God is genderless and we put gender on God because gender plays a heavy role in our culture(s).

Coke Bear may need to jump in and correct me as I delve into Catholic doctrine (I'm not a practicing Catholic, but I like the explanation Catholics give here) in an attempt to explain why Jesus calls God father even though God is genderless. The belief in the image of God in humanity begins in the Hebrew scriptures (not in Christianity), but the people of the Old Covenant did not address God as their "Father" because this was not the revelation given to them. When Moses (who, according to scripture, spoke to God 'face to face, as one speaks to a friend') asked to hear God's name, he is given "I am". This means that even the great fathers of the Old Testament were not permitted to address God as Abba, and that is precisely what marks Jesus' teaching as so revolutionary.


Furthermore, Jesus is the only person with the authority to address God as Father and to reveal Him in such a way: Jesus is a Son of God by nature, who invites us to be sons and daughters by adoption. This is why our liturgy introduces the Our Father by exclaiming, "We dare to say…" The Catechism puts it this way:
"We can invoke God as 'Father' because he is revealed to us by his Son become man and because his Spirit makes him known to us. The personal relation of the Son to the Father is something that man cannot conceive of nor the angelic powers even dimly see: and yet, the Spirit of the Son grants a participation in that very relation to us who believe that Jesus is the Christ and that we are born of God." (CCC 2780)

Though masculine and feminine metaphors (e.g. "God cares for us like a mother") are equally true, it's inappropriate to address God as "She" or "Mother" because we have no authority to alter the divine revelation of Christ.

You can believe what you want about me, but now a second attack on my christianity means I will not engage with you on this topic any more.

---