Does that include the New Testament?
Czarcasm:
No, but the post I was responding to was talking specifically about that poster’s issues with the Old Testament. I don’t get involved in discussions about Christian theology (hence my absence from the thread until now) but when someone speaks of the Old Testament that way, that’s something a Jew can knowledgeably respond to.
Except** cmkeller**, you’d agree that without a Temple, large sections of the Torah are no longer in use?
DrDeth:
That depends on what you mean by “sections are no longer in use.” Yes, there are rituals that were part of Temple service that are no longer performed in the absence of same. But since the Torah itself is what makes those rituals conditional on the Temple’s existence, the section is still in use - but right now, the part being used is the behavior in the condition of the Temple being absent.
If you want a separate religious debate, go start your own separate thread.
[ /Moderating ]
where in Bible did you get that??
1st Woosh 22:7
Paul wrote and signed his name in the New Testament to the belief that women speaking in church is disgraceful.
Do you agree with that idea?
Maybe.
*The Apostle Paul never told women to be silent in church and the Bible passage that indicates he did was a later addition by scribes, scholars have said – though others have rebutted their claims.
It remains one of the most controversial clauses in the New Testament and has fuelled centuries of misogyny as well as supporting the belief women should not be ordained.
But the infamous instruction in 1 Corinthians 14 that ‘women should remain silent in the churches’ was added later and was not written by the original author St Paul, according to analysis of ancient manuscripts by academics at the University of Cambridge… Verses 34-35 of 1 Corinthians 14, which are being disputed, read: ‘Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.’*
Contrast that to:Romans 16:1-16 New International Version (NIV)
Personal Greetings
16 I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon[a]* of the church in Cenchreae. 2 I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of his people and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been the benefactor of many people, including me.
3 Greet Priscilla[c] and Aquila, my co-workers in Christ Jesus. 4 They risked their lives for me. Not only I but all the churches of the Gentiles are grateful to them.
5 Greet also the church that meets at their house.
…
6 Greet Mary, who worked very hard for you.
7 Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among[d] the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.
…
12 Greet Tryphena and Tryphosa, those women who work hard in the Lord…
Greet my dear friend Persis, another woman who has worked very hard in the Lord.*
Paul here calls out a woman for being a great deacon, and several other women for being apostles, and who work hard for the Lord.
I believe He would treat them as they treated the least of His children. If they fed them when they were hungry, gave them drink when they thirsted, and visited them when they were imprisoned. And when they were surprised by that, he would say something to them that is none of my business. If I am walking on this earth when He returns, I will not be thinking about the state of anyone’s soul but be joyful that He will forgive me for falling short of perfection, and treat me as I have treated His children as well.
Tris
In the great story of the salvation of mankind I play one of the forgiven sinners. I’m in one of the crowd scenes. It’s not in the credits.
Do you have a citation for a deacon preaching in the church? The deacons were originally the hands of the church, not the speakers. Stephen is identified as one who preached to the unconverted, but there is no reference to him speaking to the collected Christians. I am open to correction on that point, but I am pretty sure that none of the women identified by Paul were preaching to other Christians.
Now, the passages you identified may have been a later insertion. I am not going to go looking it up, tonight. However, long before that suggestion was made, it had seemed that Paul was basing his remarks, (all of his remarks regarding women), on the Jewish practices in the synagogue and society at that time and that his remarks were current cultural practice and not orders from God.
*What, then, did these women deacons do? Not surprisingly, they played different roles in different times and places. This is true of all of the orders in the church. Church structure has changed throughout history to meet to the needs of the time…The roles that all these women held in common seem to have been the reading of the Gospel, preaching and teaching. Some played liturgical roles, particularly in the East. These roles paralleled the roles played by male deacons and that is why, of course, the women were called deacons at all. One was not likely to call them deacons unless they did what deacons do.
Apart from this, however, women deacons played different roles in the many different societies and time periods in which they existed. Some women deacons were married and had children; some were married, but had chaste marriages to male deacons; some were never married and were more like nuns today.*
https://www.futurechurch.org/sites/default/files/2-A%20Brief%20History%20of%20Women%20Deacons.pdf
The evolution of women’s ministerial leadership in early Christianity is a complex phenomenon. It is well documented that even though our earliest writings (Romans 16) give evidence that women served in apostolic ministerial roles
alongside their brothers, over the next three centuries their public ministry was
increasingly circumscribed. … Not surprisingly, there is also evidence that they exercised significant political, liturgical and administrative leadership within the earliest Christian communities, including presiding at Eucharist in their homes, at least during the late first
and early second centuries.1 In some places, including Rome, enrolled widows
were accepted as a part of the clergy, though male church leaders soon sought
to control their ministry in both the east and the west.
In the early third century, Hippolytus of Rome’s treatise The Apostolic Tradition,
forbade the ordination of widows. This is the first known proscription of women’s
ordination and it almost certainly means widows were being ordained, or why the
need for a rule? …4
On the other hand, a late fourth or early fifth century church order, the Testamentum Domini (from eastern churches in Syria, Asia Minor or Egypt) not only permits widows to be ordained, but identifies them as part of the Church hierarchy.
While it distinguishes between deaconesses, widows and female presbyters, the
greatest responsibility and honor belong to the widows. Clearly, there was significant diversity in the early church about women’s leadership roles. That said,
in late antiquity it is important to distinguish between sacramental ministry and
female ordination, liturgical ministry and membership in the clergy as these are
not one and the same. For example, while the Testamentum Domini attests that
women were ordained and belonged to the clergy, scholars do not believe they
exercised sacramental ministry in the sense of presiding at Eucharist or baptizing, ….
I would love for there to be enough documentary evidence to simply accept women in all roles of ministry including sacramental and administrative. To date, I have seen only implied references to limited locations. And, I suspect, even in places where it occurred, it probably disappeared because of societal factors (driving the opinions of male authorities).
Jesus did not choose any women among the twelve.
In all of Paul’s references to women, they are providing physical support.
In the letters to Timothy and Titus and the catholic letters of John, there are no references to women sharing in administrative or sacramental roles.
The references in the Didache (a first century document) refer to men and not to people or women.
Until we get clearer indications that women participated in all roles, my response to the question posed by Annie-Xmas is that Paul’s statements were driven by the cultural milieu in which he was raised and lived and were not direct orders from God.
Just as world economics has steered Christianity and Judaism away from the original prohibitions regarding the lending of money, societal changes, today, may steer us away from rules imposed regarding the roles of women in the church, regardless whether some factions were more open 1900 years ago…
I have known Muslims and have asked them questions yes. However I dont tell them that I know what Mohammed would do or approve of because I am an outsider.
The only thing I get from your response is that you can’t tell the difference between an outsider asking a question and an outsider giving an answer.
I am not sure about all of that but consider Jesus DID include women in his ministry for example, the Samaritan woman at the well. Its interesting that his conversation with her was the longest ever recorded in the bible to one person. He talked to her, proved his authority, and used her to bring others to him.
There was also the example of the widow and her 3 mites where Jesus showed that her example showed a greater level of sacrifice and devotion than the rich men were doing.
Jesus also made note of different womens devotion such as the Martha who anointed his head with oil and spent time at his feet learning from him rather than her sisters insistence on working in the kitchen.
After Jesus’s resurrection the first people Jesus appeared to were 2 women.
So women were there and Jesus noted there service all along.
Sure, I can accept that everyone can choose their own paths to follow. Jesus also talked to people in general such as telling soldiers to be content with their wages and for the tax collectors to only collect the fair amount.
PS. You dont know God doesnt exist. You cannot disprove it anymore than I can prove it.
I dont know. Do you?
Now I would ask that what if after becoming a Christian ANY person who feels convicted that something they were doing is a sin, should they be allowed to change if they feel God is telling them to?
I asked you what you think he would do or say. You don’t know what you think?