I did not deny that women where in some important and vital roles for the early Church, but we have no record of thewm preaching sermons and holding services.
We have them instead delivering letters, helping in feeding the poor, orginising events in cities, but never do we see them in the role of the Preacher.
Is this not Piculiar to you?
It isnt to me as I'd say they never held such positions.
It is still a denial of Scripture to say otherwise.
I have heard praise for them. I cannot be moved.
Words in blue in my posts are links. You click on them to see the quotes and sources I am referencing. Have you done that?
I showed you where the Interlinear shows the Greek does not say that.
I gave you the link to the Theological Dictionary, which tells which dictionary it is.
I gave you several links to the quote by Chrysostom. Here's another.
http://www.womenpriests.org/classic/brooten.asp. There is an endnote reference with the quote which gives its source, at the bottom of the article. Even if you don't agree with the point the quote is being used to support, it is nevertheless a real quote.
As for the Fathers, I never said I considered them as more than respected historical references. Still, it's interesting that Chrysostom said what he said about this.
It is not difficult to figure out why this should be the case, given the misogyny of the cultures where the Gospel was spreading at the time, the seclusion and lack of education experienced by most women, etc. Women in Paul's day were not ready to teach, having never been allowed to learn anything until after Christianity came. And quite frankly, if a woman had been made a minister of a church, the church would have had no converts. The surrounding cultures considered women little better than animals.
It's quite clear Paul didn't think this way. It's clear he wanted women included as full people, allowed to learn and grow, but he knew it would take time.
I think the Greek reading of 1 Tim 2:12 makes it pretty clear that Paul was saying women could not teach until they had learned.
But does he really mean that no matter how much women learn, that is all they can ever do?
I note that in Acts 18:26, Prisca and Aquila, husband and wife, both took Apollos aside and "explained to him the way of God more accurately." So Prisca, at least, taught Apollos-- though given the culture, I doubt very much if he would have listened to her without Aquila.
A woman, then, who had "learned" apparently did "teach a man." There is no evidence that Aquila, or Paul, tried to stop her, or in any way condemned her for what she had done.
Similar, then, would be Junia's case. If she was a woman (and from all I've read I think this the most likely), then she was probably the wife of Andronicus.
Though the two of them were "apostles,"
they were part of a larger, later group, not of the same rank or standing as the 12, or Paul. But if Junia did exercise the duties of apostleship (such as church planting), she would have done it along with her husband, or no one would have accepted her.
In any event, what we have is this. Early Christianity sought more inclusive roles for women within its ranks than was at all common.
Women in Christianity were considered full human beings, able to learn, and were given roles such that they were called 'co-workers" in the Gospel.
But at the time of Christianity's inception, most women were still years away from being able to take any serious leadership roles, and probably generations from any kind of real acceptance of such by the surrounding cultures. And then most of the Apostles were martyred.
As an example of what usually happens when the founders of something are removed-- my father was hired by the engineering company Hewlett-Packard in the days when Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard still ran the company. I still remember his lamentations about how the company drifted from Hewlett and Packard's original conception within a very short time after they retired. At one point, Packard even came back for a time to restore his original vision.
If this can happen within just a decade or so in an ordinary, wordly business, is Christianity entirely immune? I think not. I think that after Paul's death, the idea of women "not teaching yet" went on being, "not yet," and "not yet" eventually got replaced by "not teaching ever." And so there never was a time when "not yet" became "now."
As for "anointing," as I used it, the meaning is simply "giftedness." My pastor saw the giftedness of these Chinese women as leaders, and believed that such gifts were from God-- indeed, that God appeared to be specifically blessing these women in this particular exercise of their gift. For it is apparent that some women are 'born leaders." Why should that be only in the secular culture? Is not leadership talent a gift from God?
As for this:
I have heard praise for them. I cannot be moved.
So if a woman does well, it means nothing. But if she messes up, she becomes a "horror story," to use your own words-- an example as to why women shouldn't be allowed. Doesn't this attitude seem just a little unfair?
But I probably should stop here. I'm not going to convince you, and you're not going to convince me. You will, I'm sure, find all kinds of ways to pick apart everything I just said. I will note, though, that you never have given me the kind of quotes, sources and references for your position that I have been providing all along for mine.
ZAROVE wrote:Actualy the Interlienaries I use do not accord the interpretation you have offered, and I'd also suggest perhaps the one you ued is beign misapplied.
And it is from an unreputable soruce with a clear bias which has also no scruples in amendign how thigns are seen to fit their own agenda. I have seen much falsity form them.
Pagan and Jew alike had revered women, from Deborah to Hephestia, who held their posiitons within their societies.
Casting the blame upon the Mysogyny of the culture still lacks evidence that the Scripture permits women to hold the position of the Preacher, and is instead idle opinion in regard to the matter. Given the precice nature of the early Church andhow often it contradicted, even unto the death f its memebrs, those who lived around them, I still find htis a weak argument. When taken into consideraiton how women where revered and womeen whre proclaimed as the Great Saints, Early Among them AMary Mother of Jesus and Mary Magdalene, Joan, And later Thecla, Tabitha, and others, and given the Honour that was bestowed upon those women, and htis wihtin the ifrts two centuries of CHristendom, I do nogt think we can say the ealry Churhc suffered for the Mysogyny of the culture that surroudns it. Not, at leats,, without expainign how then it elevated to promenance so many women, as to be known as a Religion of slaves and women.
The links I missed. I've been tired of late, but I noted oen above, and shall say I have seen it before. I will addres sit in due order.
How is reserving to men the role of Preacher denyign women the fact that they are full people?
Zarove wrote:I still see no reason to conclude that the early Church permited women to fulfill this role, and see no reason to blame it only on the Mysogyny of the culture.
Neither do I see any reason why the word "I" in 1 Tim 2:12 is intended to be ignored, as if "Let the women learn, but I do not permit them to teach" meant exactly the same as "Let the women learn, but do not permit them to teach." No satisfactory reason for the presence of that "I" (which according to your interpretation is not needed there) has been given.
Your Levite argument is interesting, and I'm glad to see that you have found a way to reconcile the equality contradiction--
but I don't think it has any bearing on this instance. It's not as if the passage was written in any way so as to say, "I, God, have chosen men and given them the exclusive right to preach," which is the way the command about the Levites reads. The two sections of scripture are not similar in any way.
For more of the evidence you have requested, I present this quote from Tertullian, from his writing "On the Apparel of Women." Tertullian, against the plain reading of both the Genesis account and Paul's writings on the Fall of Man in Romans, fixes all the blame for Adam's fall on Eve. Women then are blamed for all the sin in the world, although Gen. 3:6 clearly says Eve's husband was with her when Eve first took the fruit, and Paul's teachings on the Fall of Man center on Adam.
Tertullian quite clearly misinterprets the Scriptures based on personal bias. How, then, can we exonerate the Church Fathers from any misogyny from their culture which might have affected their reading of 1 Tim 2:12? It is clear from their writings that they repudieate the surrounding culture; and yet they are not entirely free from unwarranted bias against women, as is clear from this:
in order that by every garb of penitence she might the more fully expiate that which she derives from Eve,— the ignominy, I mean, of the first sin, and the odium (attaching to her as the cause) of human perdition. "In pains and in anxieties do you bear (children), woman; and toward your husband (is) your inclination, and he lords it over you." And do you not know that you are (each) an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the devil's gateway: you are the unsealer of that (forbidden) tree: you are the first deserter of the divine law: you are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God's image, man. On account of your desert— that is, death— even the Son of God had to die.
As for your statements about Paul's use of the word "I," I do not find them compelling. I never said Paul was merely making a statement about his own personal practice; he was clearly, from the beginning of the passage ("I will that men everywhere should pray") stating his desires and policies based on his authority as an apostle. However, he still uses "I." These, then, are good, practical exhortations for Timothy to put into practice at the church in Ephesus. I merely balk at making them commandments for all time.
Paul's words, "I do not suffer a woman to teach" are written in the present, active tense.
The English has two versions of such, which would be either "I do not suffer a woman to teach," or "I am not suffering a woman to teach." In the English, the second one gives a much more timely sense to the wording, but the Greek had no such distinction. We cannot tell whether Paul meant "I do not suffer a woman to teach" or "I am not suffering a woman to teach." We cannot tell which of these shades of meaning Paul meant to convey; we only know that the purpose of this letter was to give Timothy current, direct advice on how to deal with problems the church at Ephesus was having.
The other thing interesting is that where in the verses directly above he says, "I will," and "I want" to describe what he wants the church members to do, here he does not say, "It is my will that women not teach." He merely says, "I do not suffer a woman to teach." It's interesting that, when he had been using phrases to convey his will and his desires immediately above, here he conveys only his practice.
Yes, I do believe Timothy was to follow his example. I merely do not think the words have the always-and-forever strength you are giving them, when compared with his wording in the other verses.
The statement about women not teaching is not worded as the will of God; it is not even worded as the will of Paul. It is simply worded as the practice of Paul, which he wants Timothy to follow in the church at Ephesus, where, according to chapter 1, verse 7, there was a problem with members "wanting to be teachers of the law [when they] do not know what they are talking about."
I further note that in Rev. 2:20, Jesus finds fault with the church at Thyatira, because "You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess. By her teaching she misleads my servants . . " Jesus does not say He finds fault with Thyatira for permitting women to teach; He merely faults them for listening to "that" woman who uses the title "prophetess" falsely to teach sexual immorality. Why no denounciation for letting a woman teach at all, if not teaching in the church was a command from God?
No, I just don't find your arguments compelling based on the wording of the verse in question, the teachings of other verses, and the evidence of bias from the writings of the Fathers. I will search for some more examples of the latter.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest