Was Jesus Himself an Actual "Feminist" in a way? Yes or no?

[JackRT]

No it's not. Because the pastoral epistles were written by Paul, who lived during the lifetime of Jesus. Jesus died in 33 AD, so putting 1 Timothy at 150 CE would mean that either Paul is not the author or Paul lived to be somewhere over 140 years old and was writing to Timothy when he was 140 years old.

None of this has anything to do with doctrine or dogma. We don't even know the names of the four evangelists since the names were assigned a century later based on legend.

 

[JackRT]

What about someone sending wolves in to hang with the sheep?

You seem very interested in condemning me so why beat around the bush? I really don't mind that you disagree with me because disagreement can be edifying when backed up with sound reasons.

 

[ToBeLoved]

None of this has anything to do with doctrine or dogma. We don't even know the names of the four evangelists since the names were assigned a century later based on legend.

You know I would rather not even discuss it with you seeing as your knowledge level is that AD and CE are the same.

And you don’t even acknowledge that Paul wrote 1 Timothy and 2 Timothy or that Paul didn’t live to be 140 years old.

There is no common ground at all.

Have a blessed rest of the week

 

[JackRT]

You know I would rather not even discuss it with you seeing as your knowledge level is that AD and CE are the same.

They are precisely the same the only difference being that AD was set on AD 517 while CE was determined just a few decades ago. Any difference is in name only.

And you don’t even acknowledge that Paul wrote 1 Timothy and 2 Timothy or that Paul didn’t live to be 140 years old.

For a number of good reasons I am convinced that these epistles were written at a much later date by someone other than Paul.

There is no common ground at all.

But there is. We are both interested in the truth.

Have a blessed rest of the week

Thank you. May God be with you.

 

[mkgal1]

In going back to some earlier posts.....these:

God will hold each man accountable spiritually for his family. Responsibility comes with that.

That's not what I notice, when I read the Bible. Beginning with Adam and Eve, God spoke to each of them as individuals. I don't see Him as holding Adam solely accountable for the two of them.

Abigail is another that comes to mind. She secretly went behind her husband's back (saving her entire household in the process) and I don't see any narrative about that being wrong of her.

There's also Ananias and Sapphira (in Acts 5). ISTM that Sapphira was given the opportunity to tell the truth (individually)....but failed to do so.

I can't think of any account in the Bible where the man was held accountable (spiritually or otherwise) for the behavior of his family.

If you look at the Bible and the Trinity we see that the Father glorifies Christ and the Holy Spirit teaches us in Truth about Christ and the Father is above all.

The Trinity is not a hierarchy---it's community. There is ONE God. The Athanasian creed states "neither confounding the persons; nor dividing the essence". When a hierarchy is implied in the Trinity, I believe that's dividing the essence. There is one will; one united goal; one united purpose in the Trinity.

God says we cannot be spiritual and carnal at the same time.

It depends on the sort of "carnal" you're referring to. Carnal also means merely flesh and blood. I believe there's good reason God came in human form (to redeem humanity). There's a quote from Saint Gregory of Nazianzus that speaks to that:

For that which He has not assumed He has not healed; but that which is united to His Godhead is also saved. If only half Adam fell, then that which Christ assumes and saves may be half also; but if the whole of his nature fell, it must be united to the whole nature of Him that was begotten, and so be saved as a whole. Let them not, then, begrudge us our complete salvation, or clothe the Saviour only with bones and nerves and the portraiture of humanity.~Gregory of Nazianzus - Critique of Apollinarianism

​

 

[ToBeLoved]

That's not what I notice, when I read the Bible. Beginning with Adam and Eve, God spoke to each of them as individuals. I don't see Him as holding Adam solely accountable for the two of them.

I didn't relate that it was Biblical in any relation to what God said to Adam. The verses come from elsewhere in the Bible, after Jesus so we can have the relationship if the Trinity and Godhead as reference.
1 Corinthians 11:3
3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.
[URL='http://biblehub.com/ephesians/5-23.htm'][/URL]
[URL='http://biblehub.com/ephesians/5-23.htm']Ephesians 5:23
For the husband is head of the wife, just as Christ is the head of the church, His body, of which He is the Savior.[/URL]

1 Corinthians 3:23
and you belong to Christ, and Christ belongs to God.

Ephesians 5:22
Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.

Colossians 3:18
Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.

1 Peter 3:2
when they see your pure and reverent demeanor.

1 Peter 3:7
Husbands, in the same way, treat your wives with consideration as a delicate vessel, and with honor as fellow heirs of the gracious gift of life, so that your prayers will not be hindered.

 

[ToBeLoved]

The Trinity is not a hierarchy---it's a community. There is ONE God. The Athanasian creed states "neither confounding the persons; nor dividing the essence". When a hierarchy is implied in the Trinity, I believe that's dividing the essence. There is one will; one united goal; one united purpose in the Trinity.

I never said it was a hierarchy, that is what you took from reading it.

I said the Godhead, each in their roles, glorify the other members of the Godhead.

That is not hierarchy at all.

 

[ToBeLoved]

It depends on the sort of "carnal" you're referring to. Carnal also means merely flesh and blood. I believe there's good reason God came in human form (to redeem humanity).

What in my statement about being carnal led you to believe that I was defining it as flesh and blood? There is no reason for you to presume that in what I wrote.

The fact that a word can have more than one meaning is not a problem if the reader looks for the meaning within the writing itself. Nothing I wrote would indicate a meaning of human flesh as defined by a body of flesh and blood.

 

[ToBeLoved]

There's a quote from Saint Gregory of Nazianzus that speaks to that:

I don't hold extra Biblical resources as having the same authority as God's Word.

 

[mkgal1]

I don't hold extra Biblical resources as having the same authority as God's Word.

First of all......I believe "God's Word" is Jesus. The Bible wasn't "in the beginning....".

What was canonized was based on the decision of man. The way I see it is....who's to say that these saints (and other authors the church has recognized) *weren't* inspired by God. There's protocol to what's accepted, and that protocol is that in order for it to be accepted, it has to be believed (by general consensus) that these words weren't merely revealed to an individual...but to the Church as a whole. These words have stood the test of time, much *more* time that the belief that "men are accountable for their household" (that's a modern belief). To my mind (since I don't see examples of that in the biblical text) that *is* holding to extra biblical resources as having the same authority as God's Word.

 

[ToBeLoved]

First of all......I believe "God's Word" is Jesus. The Bible wasn't "in the beginning....".

You keep adding your own reasoning to every post I make. It is getting annoying because instead of wanting to understand my position, you are further distorting it by adding a bunch of your own text.

So, if that's how you roll, then obviously you just want to not have a conversation.

Scripture is God breathed. Since God, Jesus, the Father and Holy Spirit are all perfect and Holy, then scripture being God breathed, from God is Truth.

Just because you don't hold the Bible as the authority, does not believe that God could breath into existance anything unholy or false.

 

[ToBeLoved]

What was canonized was based on the decision of man. The way I see it is....who's to say that these saints (and other authors the church has recognized) *weren't* inspired by God. There's protocol to what's accepted, and that protocol is that in order for it to be accepted, it has to be believed (by general consensus) that these words weren't merely revealed to an individual...but to the Church as a whole. These words have stood the test of time, much *more* time that the belief that "men are accountable for their household" (that's a modern belief). To my mind (since I don't see examples of that in the biblical text) that *is* holding to extra biblical resources as having the same authority as God's Word.

Just because man or human beings were the vehicle used by God to put the canon of scripture into place, does not mean it was a decision of man.

God has always used mankind as a vehicle for His will to be done on earth.

Why don't you prove that what is in the Bible is not God breathed if that is your position.

 

[mkgal1]

I didn't relate that it was Biblical in any relation to what God said to Adam. The verses come from elsewhere in the Bible, after Jesus so we can have the relationship if the Trinity and Godhead as reference.

Okay.....but I see that as cherry-picking and proof-texting.

These verses you've provided are actually what I was referring to when I mentioned earlier about the recent push-back against egalitarianism. Prior to ten years ago (or so) I hadn't even heard this argument---instead, the Gospel was presented as "Good News" for all in bondage (this seems to put the binds back on women).

There was even a book written a few years ago (and I wonder if this was what catapulted this mindset into many churches recently?).

 

[mkgal1]

You keep adding your own reasoning to every post I make. It is getting annoying because instead of wanting to understand my position, you are further distorting it by adding a bunch of your own text.

I'm only giving my responses to your posts. I don't know what else you'd prefer? I believe I understand your position. If not.....feel free to correct any errors I've made.

 

[ToBeLoved]

These verses you've provided are actually what I was referring to when I mentioned earlier about the recent push-back against egalitarianism. Prior to ten years ago (or so) I hadn't even heard this argument---instead, the Gospel was presented as "Good News" for all in bondage (this seems to put the binds back on women).

These verses you've provided are actually what I was referring to when I mentioned earlier about the recent push-back against egalitarianism. Prior to ten years ago (or so) I hadn't even heard this argument---instead, the Gospel was presented as "Good News" for all in bondage (this seems to put the binds back on women). There was even a book written a few years ago (and I wonder if this was what catapulted this mindset into churches?).

If you think that what has been in the Bible for 1800 years approximately is new in the last 10 years than your really are out of touch. The fact that you do not even know what the Bible says should open your eyes to how much you DO NOT know about the faith you have and how little you understand what the Bible even teaches. That should be your own wake up call to ignorance.

 

[mkgal1]

You keep adding your own reasoning to every post I make. It is getting annoying because instead of wanting to understand my position, you are further distorting it by adding a bunch of your own text.

So, if that's how you roll, then obviously you just want to not have a conversation.

Scripture is God breathed. Since God, Jesus, the Father and Holy Spirit are all perfect and Holy, then scripture being God breathed, from God is Truth.

Just because you don't hold the Bible as the authority, does not believe that God could breath into existance anything unholy or false.

I didn't say I don't hold the Bible in authority. Please don't distort my posts.

 

[mkgal1]

If you think that what has been in the Bible for 1800 years approximately is new in the last 10 years than your really are out of touch

Are you wishing to discuss......or just add your own spin on my posts? I'm going to sit back for a while and see what you can come up with (because you're getting pretty creative there).

The fact that you do not even know what the Bible says should open your eyes to how much you DO NOT know about the faith you have and how little you understand what the Bible even teaches. That should be your own wake up call to ignorance.

......and insulting.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Okay.....but I see that as cherry-picking and proof-texting.

I don't mean to be rude, but you are constantly moving around to different subjects. From abortion, to Adam and Eve, to the gospel, to feminism.

I am trying to stick to a topic here and have a conversation without you bringing in the kitchen sink. That is not cherry picking. You should be glad I am being diligent in trying to make my point and understand yours.

 

[ToBeLoved]

I didn't say I don't hold the Bible in authority. Please don't distort my posts.

I didn't say you do not hold it in authority.

I said the Bible is not THE authority in your view, because if it were you would probably know some of these verses and not be quoting a dead saint and his words.

Please quote my posts, not rewrite them. I choose each word carefully and it has meaning.

 

[mkgal1]

I didn't say you do not hold it in authority.

I said the Bible is not THE authority in your view, because if it were you would probably know some of these verses and not be quoting a dead saint and his words.

Please quote my posts, not rewrite them. I choose each word carefully and it has meaning.

I didn't say anything about "authority".....I said my belief is that Jesus is the Word (and I said that in response to you using the phrase "God's Word" to mean the Bible).

I'd ask the same of you....please don't add your own twist to my words either.

I'm well aware of the verses you quoted. You certainly didn't catch me unaware of them. It wouldn't be doing the scholastic work any respect to try to respond in this thread. This website has a wealth of work published (for anyone that's interested in reading): All Resources

Some books on the topic of egalitarianism are:

I Suffer Not a Woman: Rethinking I Timothy 2:11-15 in Light of Ancient Evidence

Daughters of the Church


A Woman's Place: House Churches in Early History

"Dead saint" does catch me off-guard, however. I don't know how to respond to that right now.