Women Pastors?

[CCHIPSS]

Matthew 24:26
Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold,he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.

The way between Jerusalem and Damascus (the one that Paul took) is a desert.

Acts 22:6-9
6 “About noon as I came near Damascus, suddenly a bright light from heaven flashed around me. 7 I fell to the ground and heard a voice say to me, ‘Saul! Saul! Why do you persecute me?’8 “‘Who are you, Lord?’ I asked.
“ ‘I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting,’ he replied. 9 My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me.



Paul is basically saying "I saw Jesus out in the desert".

Remember, earlier, Jesus said, "if anyone tells you he is out in the desert, do not go out"

If Jesus is telling you not to go out for a particular person, it's very obvious you should not believe that person as well.


So how did that major contradiction got into the Bible?

Remember Jesus held the same low regards for the Pharisees and Scribes in term of righteousness....They will make mistakes. That's how those contradictions got together.

Don't just take things in plain sight. Look deeper.

Proverbs 14:15
The simple believe anything, but the prudent give thought to their steps.

When some random prophet tells you Jesus is in the desert, we shouldn't believe him. And when some random prophet tells you Jesus is in a secret chamber, we also shouldn't believe in him.

That says nothing about the bible being not 100% the word of God.

Instead what is warning is against false prophets. It is the false prophets that we shouldn't follow blindly. In fact, we shouldn't follow any human or any traditions blindly. We must think critically when we listen to others.

Furthermore if anyone claims to be Jesus, do not believe him. When Jesus returns he will appear in his glory.

When Paul was in the desert and got blinded, he wasn't even reading that passage above. In fact he was a non-believer that was killing Christians. But Jesus appears to him.

Did Jesus appeared in the desert to Paul? Yes
Can Jesus appear today in a desert to someone? Yes

However this is very different from saying Jesus is in the desert right now. That we should all go see him. Obviously Jesus is no longer in the desert. Jesus appearing to someone for a moment is very different from Jesus being there right now.

Once again if anyone claims to be Jesus, do not believe him. When Jesus returns he will appear in his glory.

 

[SnowyMacie]

But "hard to understand" is very different than "doubtful."

True.

 

[CCHIPSS]

It does say that Paul can be confusing.

2 Peter 3:16 "He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort,as they do the other Scriptures to their own destruction."

It is true that parts of the bible are hard to understand. And it doesn't just apply to Paul. However notice what Peter said, that it is the untaught and unstable evil men that twists the word of God for their own destruction. Paul and other writers wrote the bible just as God willed it to be written. They made no mistake in obeying what God told them to write down.

Also notice that here Peter is talking about end times and the upcoming judgement. That evil men was saying the end won't come. (2 Peter 3:3-4) But Peter is reminding them that the end will come. So what Peter is referring here about Paul is only on the topic of end times and upcoming judgement. Peter wasn't saying everything Paul wrote was hard to understand.

A Christian do not have to fully understand everything in the bible to get to heaven and have treasures in heaven. Knowledge is important, but at the heart of it is the Greatest Commandant. That they love God, love others and love (be content) themselves.

If a person loves God, he won't twist the word of God for their own destruction. The reason someone would twist the word of God is to create their own god. That the one true God isn't good enough for them. For example if someone wants to steal, he creates a god where stealing is allowed. And the false prophets get around the bible by saying "god" reveal new information to them where stealing is allowed.

If someone admits that stealing is wrong yet keep stealing, he can still be forgiven. However saying God allows stealing is indeed a road to destruction. Because he risks worshiping a false god and idol. What sin can be worst than worshiping a false god and idol? He is much better being a sinner yet worship the correct God, than saying he isn't sinning because his false god said that isn't a sin.

Other things are debatable. Is abortion allowed? Should we do capital punishment today? Even female pastors is debatable. (Yes it is.) One can believe in either opinion and still be Christians, because the bible isn't clear on these. But my above example is about something very clear (stealing). If someone refuse to believe these 140% clear doctrines, he is a false prophet.

That's why they say Jesus isn't even God. That salvation is from works not faith. That they donate money and volunteer in order to earn salvation, not out of love for others. Or that you will become wealthy and healthy just be believing in God. All these are false prophets.

If eternal life need to be earned, then we work for salvation. However eternal life cannot be earn but can only be received as a gift from God. The grace and mercy of God has frees us to do all things out of love for others. We accept that this life will be filled by pain and suffering, however we know love never fails because God didn't even spare his only son to suffer and die for us. If even God himself suffered because he loves us, we have no place to complain of our suffering. We have no place to complain that a sin is too harsh so it isn't a sin.

 

[Cearbhall]

To those who believe that women should not be pastors in Christian churches: I'm curious. Do you believe this should apply to all religions, or do you see it as a Christian way of doing things?

 

[Paulie079]

To those who believe that women should not be pastors in Christian churches: I'm curious. Do you believe this should apply to all religions, or do you see it as a Christian way of doing things?

I believe this is a mandate for Christians and applies only to the Christian church as it was Christians who were the intended audience of the letters that talk about the qualifications for elders/overseers.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Jesus choose 12 men to be Apostles

even though there was Mary Magdalene and the Blessed Virgin Mary who could have been Apostles
IF Jesus wanted women to have that role

Already addressed.
1. Both Scripture and Tradition recognize female apostles, e.g. St. Junia.
2. If only the Twelve are to be regarded as relevant in this regard, then again I would point to the fact that the Twelve were all Jewish and my argument has already been made twice in this regard.

I guess some people just think they are wiser then every Christian group for the first 1700 years of Christianity

Nope. But many Christians do recognize that simply because something has always been done a certain way doesn't, in and of itself, constitute reason enough not to open the question up for further discussion. I accept Scripture, I accept the Creeds, I accept the first seven ecumenical councils of the Holy Catholic Church.

What I find lacking are the arguments made. What I don't accept is the argument that the Church, historically, only ordained men to be sufficient in establishing dogma on the matter, as though the Church has ever been completely free and independent from the social mores and values of the cultures in which it has found itself. While the Church, ideally, perhaps ought to be free and independent from the surrounding culture the historic reality is quite the opposite; and I would argue that the Church has regularly worked from within the cultural milieu in order to be a faithful dispenser of the Gospel to that culture. But it is a precarious balance.

The historic reality is that of cultures which have been, predominantly, patriarchal and to varying degrees misogynistic in its thoughts and treatment of women--there are, indeed, a great many misogynistic quotes one can find throughout the Church's history which Christians are more than willing to eschew because and distance themselves from; in the same way that the Church, historically, has had a history of antisemitism--in the writings of the fathers, medieval thinkers, etc and which often in the past resulted in great bloodshed against the Jews and which recent Popes and other leaders of the Church(es) have disavowed and apologized for. All of us, regardless of our denomination or theological tradition recognize the sins of our fathers. As a Lutheran I recognize just how truly horrible many of the words of Martin Luther were, the things he said were regularly and frequently ugly, cruel, and at times simply evil.

So we cannot make an appeal purely on the basis of historical precedent. There is required, at the very least, a solid theological argument; and as I have already addressed several times in this thread, such appeals to theology have been incredibly weak in their substance.

2 Timothy 4:3
For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears

A passage that is quoted frequently in every manner of debate over every manner of topic in order to portray one's opponent as having followed after false teachers and having fallen into a delusion and deception characteristic of general "end times badness". It is, altogether, unhelpful and serves no other purpose in a debate except to seek to silence one's opponent by shaming them by implication of heresy.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Cearbhall]

I guess some people just think they are wiser then every Christian group for the first 1700 years of Christianity

There are many, many things that I strongly believe we do much better than most societies before 1700, yes. And views of gender weren't exactly a strong point for them.

 

[Rhamiel]

There are many, many things that I strongly believe we do much better than most societies before 1700, yes. And views of gender weren't exactly a strong point for them.

you are not a Christian so I do not expect you to have a positive view of the truths of Christianity

for those who DO believe in Christianity, I find it stunning that they think the Holy Spirit filled the Apostles who went forth working signs and wonders, but the Holy Spirit could not tell them to ordain priestesses

1. Both Scripture and Tradition recognize female apostles, e.g. St. Junia.

St. Junia was an early Christian who was known to St. Paul
she was the wife of St. Andronicus
but she was not an Apostle, neither was St. Andronicus, they were "esteemed by the Apostles"
neither of them were Apostles, though St. Andronicus a Bishop (pretty sure on that)

as for the idea of "oh just because things used to be one way does not mean we can not change it"

we do not make up new religions to suit our modern ideas
we preserve the faith that has been handed down to us from the Apostles of the Lord
it is His Church, we are called to preserve it, not twist and distort it to suit the fashions of the day

 

[Cearbhall]

you are not a Christian so I do not expect you to have a positive view of the truths of Christianity

What a silly response. I felt exactly the same way when I was Catholic. As a woman, I am ceaselessly grateful that I don't live in a pre-1700 Christian nation.

 

[CodyFaith]

To those who believe that women should not be pastors in Christian churches: I'm curious. Do you believe this should apply to all religions, or do you see it as a Christian way of doing things?

I only believe in one religion, and that's Christianity, so I don't care what other religions do.

Paul said it, I believe it.

 

[EyesOfKohl]

 

[Tull]

A passage that is quoted frequently in every manner of debate over every manner of topic in order to portray one's opponent as having followed after false teachers and having fallen into a delusion and deception characteristic of general "end times badness". It is, altogether, unhelpful and serves no other purpose in a debate except to seek to silence one's opponent by shaming them by implication of heresy.

-CryptoLutheran[/QUOTE]

Ok,you have made your argument for subjective truth,any truth that isn't subjective ?

 

[ViaCrucis]

St. Junia was an early Christian who was known to St. Paul
she was the wife of St. Andronicus
but she was not an Apostle, neither was St. Andronicus, they were "esteemed by the Apostles"
neither of them were Apostles, though St. Andronicus a Bishop (pretty sure on that)

To which I would counter:

"Then another praise besides. 'Who are of note among the Apostles.' And indeed to be apostles at all is a great thing. But to be even among these of note, just consider what a great encomium this is! But they were of note owing to their works, to their achievements. Oh! How great is the devotion of this woman, that she should be even counted worthy of the appellation of apostle! But even here he does not stop, but adds another encomium besides, and says, 'Who were also in Christ before me.'" - St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on Romans, Homily 31

as for the idea of "oh just because things used to be one way does not mean we can not change it"

we do not make up new religions to suit our modern ideas
we preserve the faith that has been handed down to us from the Apostles of the Lord
it is His Church, we are called to preserve it, not twist and distort it to suit the fashions of the day

I agree. I don't believe I suggested otherwise. The issue, as I've raised it is whether or not the forbidding of women to ordination is part of the "faith once and for all delivered"; my argument is that it's not. The Roman Mass had never been celebrated in English until the Second Vatican Council, it had never been done before--but now it's done. Just because something has never been done, or something has only ever been done one way, doesn't make it a dogmatic part of the faith. I merely bring this up to illustrate how, even in your own tradition, things have been done which were never before done--and the world didn't blow up; though I would point out that Sedevacantists and certain Ultra-Traditionalists would be perfectly happily to point to the reforms of Vatican II as evidence of heresy and that the Mass in the vulgar tongue is a heretical innovation.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Ok,you have made your argument for subjective truth,any truth that isn't subjective ?

Since that wasn't my argument your question is invalid.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Cearbhall]

I believe this is a mandate for Christians and applies only to the Christian church as it was Christians who were the intended audience of the letters that talk about the qualifications for elders/overseers.

I only believe in one religion, and that's Christianity, so I don't care what other religions do.

Thanks for the responses.

 

[Rhamiel]

To those who believe that women should not be pastors in Christian churches: I'm curious. Do you believe this should apply to all religions, or do you see it as a Christian way of doing things?

I do not even really care what denominations that lack Apostolic Succession do

so really I only care about the Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Coptic (oriental orthodox)

The Roman Mass had never been celebrated in English until the Second Vatican Council,

yes, but we HAVE seen the liturgy be celebrated in other languages
Greek, Coptic, Syrian, Latin
so the changing of language is not something that is unprecedented

What a silly response. I felt exactly the same way when I was Catholic

I believe you when you say that is how you thought
and your thought process led you out of Catholicism (is it fair to say outside of Christianity? even though we do not agree on the topic on the ordination of women I do not want to be rude and put words in your mouth)

so because of that, I think you have a serious failure in your thought process
I do not wish to sound rude or make it sound like I am talking down to you, as you are very intelligent
but since your thought process led you away from Christ, I think there was/is a serious flaw in your thought process

 

[timewerx]

That is a majorly ambiguous passage to use to cast doubt on half of the New Testament, and an even more ambiguous application of it--in the very least a maaaaajor stretch. The problem with your theory is that after Paul's encounter with Jesus, he was an entirely changed person. A man responsible for imprisoning and slaughtering Christians became one of the greatest missionaries of the faith basically overnight. He was no longer a Pharisee after that encounter, and his writings prove it.

I hope you're not just considering "radical change" (even for the better) or even martyrdom as seal of approval.
Even false teachers/prophets can do that so they can deceive even more.

He was no longer a Pharisee after that encounter, and his writings prove it.

He does not deny it either, even still called them brothers. There's even no strong reason for him to lie if he was lying (Acts 23:6). It's more likely that he meant it than he is lying.

Like I said, nowhere does the Bible say that anyone should doubt the things written in it.

If you really know God by now you should realize God doesn't always make things clear in plain sight. Often, you have to dig deeper.

Remember Joseph the Dreamer, he had to interpret his rather abstractly presented dreams. If it is really that important, why hide it behind symbols? Perhaps, it might give you an idea of who really God is.

 

[Cearbhall]

I believe you when you say that is how you thought
and your thought process led you out of Catholicism

Not my thought process on this topic. As I've said many times, this is how I was raised. Catholic and egalitarian. My classmates thought women should be priests, my teachers at my Catholic school thought women should be priests, my parents would have supported me in anything...my views on this have absolutely nothing to do with me leaving. I was content to stay in the RCC since I didn't feel a calling to be a priest. It's not like there are many Catholics who think the Church is right about everything.

so because of that, I think you have a serious failure in your thought process
I do not wish to sound rude or make it sound like I am talking down to you

I think you need to ask around and talk to a wider variety of Catholics.

 

[timewerx]

When Paul was in the desert and got blinded, he wasn't even reading that passage above.

Paul was actually addressing an audience regarding his encounter with Christ in Acts 22:6-8 if you would read the verses before it.

He said he was on his way to Damascus from Jerusalem and near Damascus (but not yet in the city) when He claimed to have encountered Christ. There's a desert between Jerusalem and Damascus (in those times) and the road they took went through that desert.

It's basically the same.... If you expect things to be worded exactly, I'm afraid that's not how God works. Even the dreams Joseph received from God were abstract and he had to interpret it where most people can't.

Did Jesus appeared in the desert to Paul? Yes

I cannot vouch for that

Can Jesus appear today in a desert to someone? Yes

If you read Matthew 24, if Christ appears, it will be seen by a lot of people and it's pretty much the end of the world and everyone will be mourning.

He warned us also in Matthew 24, not to believe anyone who claims Christ that appeared (but before the end of the world and only few people witnessed)

I'm actually more amused than surprised that the vast majority of Christians choose to ignore that one detail that could change everything....It was prophesied after all.
.
.
.

 

[Cimorene]

Our minister is on fleek & she's a lady. Gender is a non-issue. Whoever does the job the best should do it.