Basing one's understanding about roles in the Church on the actions of Jesus--how He treated people--is "precarious?" I don't think so.
This points at what you folks keep avoiding. How does Jesus' treatment of women translate into them becoming doctrinal teaching authorities in the (C)hurch? Every one of you continues to avoid that question, and a number of others that stab at the very foundation of claims that some women being made judges and others having shared the first news about the resurrection makes them into what Paul clearly commanded against.
You keep talking about the "very clear and precise instructions" issued by Paul. Yes, Paul said in I Cor. 14 that women were to keep silent in the church, and in I Timothy 2:12, "I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man." Tell me, are women told that they must "keep silent" in your church, that they are not permitted to speak?
I have never, anywhere in this thread or any other, taken issue with women speaking in the various gatherings. That's a non-issue with me given what Paul was addressing. We ALL exercise the literary and conversational freedom to cover multiple points in a singular statement we make, the points of which can all be individually couched within varying contexts, so why not Paul? Paul spoke of women being silent given the interruptions originating from various reasons many have speculated about over the years. Then he speaks of women teaching men being disallowed. That is backed by Old Testament and many other New Testament passages throughout, and because masculine teaching authority goes against the precepts derived from a number of feministic demands and practices within modern culture, the examples, commands, and biblical instructions are relegated into insignificance and powerlessness in the face of interpretational rules that, if applied consistently across all of scripture, can be shown to be manipulative and downright illegitimate.
That is the plain meaning of what Paul wrote. Also note that in I Timothy 2:12 Paul wrote "I do not permit a woman to teach." He didn't state it as a command for all times, he simply stated what he did. Yet in Phil. 4:3, he wrote of Euodia and Syntyche, two women who Paul said, "labored with me in the gospel." Perhaps he was addressing an isolated issue to Timothy, otherwise how could these women have labored with him without authority? His terms described them as co-workers, not in some secondary role.
There are a number of women who "labor with me in the Gospel" in our church. Point of fact, they do not labor in every element of what all others exercise in ALL our labors "in the Gospel." They do not exercise doctrinal teaching authority over the congregation, especially the men.
So, pointing at the information gaps in Paul's statements and assuming you have license to inject meaning into those blanks with modern, cultural dogmas.....no. That's not an honest handling of the scriptures and the limitations they express independent of all man-woman-made limiting qualifications
injected into them by wishful thinking and subjective reasonings.
Perhaps you should read the complete paragraph instead of questioning the first sentence. I'm sure you are aware that in Romans 16:2 Paul uses the term "Prostatis" to describe Phoebe. Among the meanings of the term are leader or officer.
Let's see what the Lexicon has to say about that rather than subjectively choosing a definition that happens to give the illusion of backing a contradictory claim:
"a female guardian, protectress, patroness, caring for the affairs of others and aiding them with her resources (A. V. succourer):
Romans 16:2; cf. Passow on the word and under προστάτης at the end; (Schürer, Die Gemeindeverfassung der Juden in Rom, as above with (Leip. 1879), p. 31; Heinrici, Die Christengemeinde Korinths, in Hilgenfeld's Zeitschr. for 1876, p. 517f)."
If you look at that, it seems to indicate that she had resources from which to help, care for and assist others. Who are those others? We can only speculate on that, but, again, injecting into the whole portrait what is not there by filling it in with modern culture and its dogmas, you're grasping at thin air for substance that simply isn't there. Nowhere in that definition nor in the surrounding contexts from which you ripped that verse, does it even hint at the idea that she was a doctrinal teaching authority over the men in that place. How does AIDING others with resources magically translate into doctrinal teaching authority?
"Distraction statements." Apparently you are unable to engage in polite conversation. Very sad.
I never said that you created those statements nor the ideas behind them. They have all been taught to us all by others. I've seen and heard them many times from many different people through the years, so please don't pretend that I have somehow violated any assumed rights to those statements and ideas as being your own. I don't blame you for using them. You see, public education, from which most of us hale, rife with a hatred for logic. Critical thinking has been shoved off into the never-never lands of modern thought because those skills stand as bastions against modern irrationality. Emotive thinking and argumentation are the main fares we've all been influenced to pork out on, along with the taught skill for subjectively injecting meaning into where it will give the greatest advantage. I've talked with folks who live and breath the idea of winning at all costs....even if it costs them their personal integrity in the eyes of others around them.
So, please don't be offended when I point at some of the tools you are using as being mere "distractions." That's not a stab at you personally. We've ALL been touched by the sources that seek to incorporate weaknesses in the place of strong, intellectual discipline, which is a state of mind that can help to keep us all on track, thus leading us to the destination of absolute truth. Distractions derail anyone from getting to that desired point.
Your rude comments were in response to the following: "Junia, was described as being 'well known among the apostles.' This could simply mean that she was known to the apostles, it could also mean that she was an apostle." An Apostle would have had doctrinal teaching authority. If she was simply known to the Apostles, that doesn't mean she didn't have such authority.
Ok. Let's explore your reasoning:
Does asking a question that happens to conform to your personal beliefs about women and teaching authority, somehow legitimize your conclusion that being known by the apostles magically transforms her into being a doctrinal teaching authority in the (C)hurch? I am known by some high ranking government officials in my state, but that doesn't at all translate into my having any measure of authority that only they possess. What do you think a cop would say if I told him, "Hey, I am known by the state governor and all his staff"? Do you think he'd let me go because of that? I mean, come on....
The full verses read "For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise. Does "there is neither Jew nor Greek" blur any lines? Slave nor free? Then why would male nor female?
Yes, they do blur the lines because of the contextual slaughter of that paragraph you're trying to perpetrate. Nowhere in any of that, nor within its context, is it ever hinted that women therefore have doctrinal teaching authority on par with the apostles, elders, pastors, priests, or any other masculine function within the (C)hurch. Salvation is blind to gender, class, social status, and even ethic background, which is the putting on of Christ. So please explain how all of that somehow becomes equality with something that's not even a topic in the context? That, my friend, is manipulation. It is painting over the text with self-made colors of meaning that are not even hinted at.
But you were the one who wrote that "the Greek term in Eph. 4:11translated as "pastor" from the Greek word "poi-mā'n" is identified as a "Masculine Noun," and claimed that supported your argument that the office of pastor was limited to men. I gave on example of the feminine word spirit and you have no real answer. Apparently the gender identity of words only matters to you when it supports your position.
Alright. Let's talk about that one: Did the use of the term "spirit" in your source verse play out to an unmistakable conclusion that women therefore possess equality in doctrinal teaching authority within the (C)hurch? Is that idea a part of the context, expressed in unmistakable clarity, or anything else that avoids illegitimate injections of meaning that some may try to employ?
Jr
