toldailytopic: Women Pastors. Good idea, bad idea?

[Silent Hunter]

The authenticity of these books may be a minority view, but it is by no means an unknown one in the scholarly world.

. . . I'm quite sure I didn't say otherwise.

These books, further, were acknowledged as authentic by at least the second century, . . .

. . . good forgeries usually are . . .

. . . and almost certainly quoted by prominent church figures in the late first.

. . . and this makes them authentic . . . how . . . exactly?

It is simply not a closed issue.

:yawn:

Further, I hope you don't consider Bart Ehrman a "Christian scholar."

. . . why shouldn't he be?

An absolutely irrelevant cheap shot.

. . . truth hurts . . . eh?

 

[Samstarrett]

. . . I'm quite sure I didn't say otherwise.

Yet you acted as though there was no debate.

. . . good forgeries usually are . . .

If they were forgeries, they were good enough to fool the best minds of their own time, who were much closer to the cultural, linguistic, and historical context of the authentic epistles than we. What advantage do we have?

. . . and this makes them authentic . . . how . . . exactly?

The best minds of the Church thought them apostolic in origin. This is a strong suggestion that they are, in fact, apostolic in origin. These were men who were at most one or two generations removed from the Apostles themselves.

Perhaps a better question would be:

Their dismissal by modern liberal scholars makes them forgeries...how...exactly(note the correctly typeset ellipses)?

:yawn:

You are impossible.

. . . why shouldn't he be?

Because he's not a Christian. He's an agnostic. That a good enough reason for you?

. . . truth hurts . . . eh?

Doesn't hurt me. Relevance, however, is appreciated where it can be mustered.

 

[serpentdove]

". . . [C]heck your avatar sd . . . who has long teeth?"

Touché. :e4e:

". . . better to be gay (which I'm not)..."

...Not that there is anything wrong with that. :Shimei:

"...than . . . a Christian of your 'persuasion.'"

There are believers (Ac 5:14; 1 Ti 4:12) and there are non-believers. You cannot be almost pregnant and you cannot be almost Christian (Jn 5:24). Psa. 1:1–6; Psa. 11:5; Psa. 17:14, 15; Psa. 32:10; Psa. 37:17–22, 37, 38; Psa. 68:6; Psa. 73:1–28; Psa. 75:10; Psa. 91:7, 8; Psa. 107:33–38; Psa. 125:5; Prov. 10:6, 9, 21, 23–25, 28, 29, 30, 32; Prov. 11:3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 18–21, 23, 31; Prov. 12:3, 5–7, 13, 21, 26; Prov. 13:6, 13, 17, 21; Prov. 14:19, 22, 32; Prov. 15:6; Prov. 21:18, 26; Prov. 22:5; Prov. 8:1, 4, 5, 13, 14, 18; Isa. 32:1–8; Isa. 65:13, 14; Mal. 3:18; Rom. 2:7–10; Eph. 2:12–14; Phil. 2:15; 1 Thess. 5:5–8; Tit. 1:15; 1 Pet. 4:17, 18; 1 John 1:6, 7; 1 John 3:3–17.

". . forged books are used in . . . your church."

No.

See:

Inspired Scripture

 

[Samstarrett]

With any luck you two will finish each other off.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Yet you acted as though there was no debate.

. . . there's not . . . except on the lunatic fringe (sd for example)

If they were forgeries, they were good enough to fool the best minds of their own time, who were much closer to the cultural, linguistic, and historical context of the authentic epistles than we.

. . . LOL . . . proximity to the event doesn't equate to immunity from fraud . . . gotten any e-mails from Nigeria lately?

What advantage do we have?

Technology . . . for one.

The best minds of the Church thought them apostolic in origin.

So? How does that prove the "letters" aren't fraudulent?

This is a strong suggestion that they are, in fact, apostolic in origin.

No . . . it isn't.

These were men who were at most one or two generations removed from the Apostles themselves.

See above :yawn:.

Perhaps a better question would be:

Their dismissal by modern liberal scholars makes them forgeries...how...exactly?

. . . actually conservative scholars are more prone to accepting these forgeries (and additions and subtractions) in the Bible.

Among other evidence 1 & 2 Timothy are forgeries:

1. uses words and developed ideas that are at odds with those in the other letters of Paul.

2. heresies attack were common in the 2nd century but not in the 1st century . . . such as gnosis attacking the Gnostics.

3. Paul expected the imminent return of Jesus . . . the "Pastorals" set up a church hierarchy . . . why so if Jesus was to return soon?

. . . read the book [the closed minded won't bother].

. . . the list is extensive.

(note the correctly typeset ellipses)

:yawn:

You are impossible.

:yawn:

Because he's not a Christian. He's an agnostic. That a good enough reason for you?

. . . I guess you don't know Ehrman's past then . . . do you?

 

[Silent Hunter]

No.

See:

Inspired Scripture

. . . because you BELIEVE they are . . . NOT that they actually are :doh:.

 

[Ardima]

She should not accept the position of senior pastor (1 Ti 2:12).

“If nominated, I will not accept; if drafted, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve.” ~ William Tecumseh Sherman

(1 Timothy 2:12) seems to be the only verse you throw out there, but I have already clearly stated that the context of the verse specifically means a wife should not teach or assume authority over the husband. He is not saying that "women in general" sould not teach or assume authority over "men in general." And I also pointed out that Paul clearly states that he (Paul) does not permit it, not God... this means that it was his own advise on the subject, not God's final rule... Therefore if you still want to claim as you do, provide another verse that directly forbids it.

 

[coulter4president]

Jesus sent Mary Magdalene to inform the Apostles...

Therefore she is called "the apostle to the apostles".

i didn't know being sent to tell others something .. made you an "apostle"

 

[Silent Hunter]

i didn't know being sent to tell others something .. made you an "apostle"

. . . the source is Catholic (like you) . . . now do the math.

 

[coulter4president]

Interesting. I don't know that Eve being deceived and Adam having no self restraint are reasons for women to not be ministers. If men are disobedient and disregard explicit rules given by God, why are they given places of authority, especially in churches?
Also, maybe you being easily deceived is an individual character trait - because I know plenty of women who are not and plenty of men who are more gullible than women.

just being honest but this sounds very presumptuous.

for one thing i never said that those were the only reasons. The primary reason women shouldn't be priests (ministers) is because Jesus did not choose any women apostles. I get sick and tired of hearing ppl say things that imply this is unequal or unfair. Men can't carry babies for 9 months in their womb (well, not when they do things God's way anyhow... geez)

and that part about men being disobedient so why should they be ministers? uh... geez... Didn't you know that Jesus (a man) was resurrected? Now both genders can be... can rise above mere human stuff... That is not to say that it is always easy to rise above... but anyway.. My main pt was that women were the deceived ones, man was not... Does that mean i think men are better than women? No... but myabe in some ways you could say that.. but whatever...

in any case it is VERY presumptuous to say that such and such woman is not easily deceived even tho some other(s) such as myself may be.. You have NO idea what goes on inside a person. People act all the time... They are one person in public and another in private... one person when w/ spouse, another when w/ someone else...

and if you are a guy, you dont know much about that thing about women virtually hating other women... I know quite a bit about that..

 

[Krsto]

i didn't know being sent to tell others something .. made you an "apostle"

Have you ever done a word study on the word apostle?

 

[coulter4president]

. . . the source is Catholic (like you) . . . now do the math.

everyone who claims to be Catholic is not... case you haven't noticed.. but this is one of those many things that only a practicing Cathlic really knows much about... you kinda have to be "at the party" to know what's going on there.. as it were. Those outside the party can't say what's going on.. But they do anyway... gets SO tiresome.. presumption. It's like me, as a woman, saying i know exactly what a Masonic lodge mtg is all about... :dunce:

have no idea what that thing about doing the math means...??

 

[coulter4president]

. . . all from a person who wants a woman president . . . my irony meter pegged again.

only a nonCatholic would say this.

The Church is NOT a democracy, although usually ppl therein applaud democratic process...

Coulter being president is a FAR cry from her being a priest..

but then ... again, only a Catholic can probably see why this is so...

i wish everyone would attend RCIA classes and learn what the Church is REALLY all about... instead of making presumptions right and left as they normally do

 

[coulter4president]

Have you ever done a word study on the word apostle?

not really.. but frankly, i dont care.

i study Jesus...

He saves me, not the study of words..

 

[coulter4president]

Why say "they"? You are a woman too and have most likely felt the same thing in the past. Someone's boyfriend/husband finding a woman attractive is the fault of the man as well. Why blame her for your husband/boyfriend's thoughts? Emotions are just part of a woman's biological makeup but I know many women, and include myself as one, who appreciate and utilize their emotions but also actively think objectively. I also know men who are ruled completely by their emotions. It is an individual experience and it doesn't make one sex better than the other.

4 one thing i never said it made anyone better, although the male seems to be "better" in one way, the female in another... so things even out... God loves women as much as he loves men... They are all just souls in his eyes.. but souls affected by such things as their gender..

women are biologically superior to men... They live longer.. There is less mental retardation in females (not that being mentally retarded is a defect... i dont call it that)

But when it comes to logical, objective thinking, men are superior.. Yes, there are exceptions ... i am saying this Generally speaking

 

[Silent Hunter]

everyone who claims to be Catholic is not... case you haven't noticed..

. . . no true Scotsman, eh . . .

. . . but this is one of those many things that only a practicing Cathlic really knows much about... you kinda have to be "at the party" to know what's going on there.. as it were. Those outside the party can't say what's going on.. But they do anyway... gets SO tiresome.. presumption.

. . . or this.

It's like me, as a woman, saying i know exactly what a Masonic lodge mtg is all about...

. . . I guess not . . .

have no idea what that thing about doing the math means...??

. . . plug in new variables . . . recalculate the equation . . .

 

[Silent Hunter]

only a nonCatholic would say this.

. . . oddly . . . its pulled in some rep.

The Church is NOT a democracy, although usually ppl therein applaud democratic process...

. . . then they should do away with that Papal election thingy . . .

Coulter being president is a FAR cry from her being a priest..

. . . I don't think anyone has said it was . . .

but then ... again, only a Catholic can probably see why this is so...

. . . the input from them has been scarce . . . and when there was you dismissed it.

i wish everyone would attend RCIA classes and learn what the Church is REALLY all about... instead of making presumptions right and left as they normally do

. . . does it involve genuflecting? . . . I just love lots of genuflecting.

 

[Krsto]

Among other evidence 1 & 2 Timothy are forgeries:

1. uses words and developed ideas that are at odds with those in the other letters of Paul.

2. heresies attack were common in the 2nd century but not in the 1st century . . . such as gnosis attacking the Gnostics.

3. Paul expected the imminent return of Jesus . . . the "Pastorals" set up a church hierarchy . . . why so if Jesus was to return soon?

Though I agree that the reasons given by the councils in the late 4th Century for accepting certain books in the canon do not guarantee their authenticity, I find your reasons given for rejecting the Timothy letters are even weaker arguments for rejecting them.

1) I have been at this quite awhile - I haven't seen these supposed contradictions - what exactly are they?
2) How does #2 above argue for them being forgeries?
3) The pastorals in no way set up a heirarchy - they set up a ministry with gift-based roles enumerated. There are no offices or positions in the church. You must be reading the KJP (King James Perversion), a translation by paid scholars in one denomination, the Church of England, who had a vested interest in preserving their heirarchy and privileged positions in the church.

Rather than quote me more reasons from the book let's just deal with the ones you gave - I assume you picked the best arguments to support your assertion, no? I prefer to deal with the best reasons rather than trying to refute straw man arguments.

 

[Krsto]

not really.. but frankly, i dont care.

i study Jesus...

He saves me, not the study of words..

So you are preoccupied with getting saved and until then can't get beyond a rudimentary understanding of the Word?

 

[Silent Hunter]

Though I agree that the reasons given by the councils in the late 4th Century for accepting certain books in the canon do not guarantee their authenticity, I find your reasons given for rejecting the Timothy letters are even weaker arguments for rejecting them.

. . . not surprising . . . but I'm not exactly the best source for textural criticism . . . so . . . I suggest you get (and read) the book.

1) I have been at this quite awhile - I haven't seen these supposed contradictions - what exactly are they?

Read the book.

2) How does #2 above argue for them being forgeries?

Paul semi-attacks a heresy that hasn't even occurred yet . . . Gnosticism (perhaps he was being proactive).

3) The pastorals in no way set up a hierarchy - they set up a ministry with gift-based roles enumerated. There are no offices or positions in the church. You must be reading the KJP (King James Perversion), a translation by paid scholars in one denomination, the Church of England, who had a vested interest in preserving their hierarchy and privileged positions in the church.

Pastoral epistles The three pastoral epistles are books of the canonical New Testament: the First Epistle to Timothy (1 Timothy) the Second Epistle to Timothy (2 Timothy), and the Epistle to Titus. They are presented as letters from Paul of Tarsus to Timothy and to Titus. They are generally discussed as a group (sometimes with the addition of the Epistle to Philemon) and are given the title pastoral not because they are uniquely caring or addressing personal needs, but because they are addressed to individuals with pastoral oversight of churches and discuss issues of Christian living, doctrine and leadership.​

Rather than quote me more reasons from the book let's just deal with the ones you gave - I assume you picked the best arguments to support your assertion, no? I prefer to deal with the best reasons rather than trying to refute straw man arguments.

The reasons I listed aren't necessarily the "best" reason but you'd gain better insight if read the book . . . I'm rather busy and have better thing to do than bat the shuttle with you.