Coke Bear said: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).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.
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.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:
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.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.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.")
When the unbaptized person is baptized, the marriage becomes sacramental.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:
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.)Is it possible that there is no reference to women because women were not rabbis?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.)
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.