women priests in christianity?

[Tiberius]

all can communicate with god. but only males represent god because god is male.

God has a penis, does he?

 

[whirlingmerc]

of course... there is a great high priest in Christianity.... and that would be Jesus
who is male

but all believers are in a sense priests to God

 

[Ingledsva]

diakonos is not pastor, but servant/deacon
it is not clear if the woman mentioned is acting as influentially as official deacons or an official deacon ... she was noteworthy in whatever her role was. Note that the oldest Baptist denominations allowed men and women to be deacons but only men to be elders and pastors. They would say as most protestants would that all believers are in a sense priests to God and all believers are ambassadors for Christ, both men and women.

It is usually used as pastor/minister, as you know.

It is used for both Jesus and Paul.

Col 1:25 Whereof I am made a minister (diakonos), according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;

Here it is obviously being used as minister/preacher -

Php 1:1 Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:

So, the servants and saints, - are there with the bishops and ministers.

And this says it all. -

1Ti 3:1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

1Ti 3:3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;

1Ti 3:4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;

1Ti 3:5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

1Ti 3:6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.

1Ti 3:7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

1Ti 3:8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;

1Ti 3:9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.

1Ti 3:10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.

1Ti 3:11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.

1Ti 3:12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

1Ti 3:13 For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

1Ti 3:14 These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly:

1Ti 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

This makes it plain that deacons are one step under bishops, and expected to act accordingly. Thus preachers/ministers.

In fact there are only 7 verses in the NT were this word is translated servant. Six of these are actual servant situations, - and the seventh is the LOWERED translated status of a FEMALE Minister.

Rom 16:1 I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which IS Diakonos/Minister of the church which is at Cenchrea:

SEE # 104.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

And you are voicing yours....correct?

Yes, as I said in the last sentence - My opinion is ....

According to Romans 16:1-2 (ASV) "I commend unto you Phoebe our sister, who is a servant of the church that is at Cenchreae: 2 that ye receive her in the Lord, worthily of the saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever matter she may have need of you: for she herself also hath been a helper of many, and of mine own self."

Read what it says...not what you want it to say. You have a great knack for twisting scripture.

Phoebe was "a servant" (diakinos) which literally means "one whose feet are dusty in the service of others". As there was no "clergy" class in the first century, this did not distinguish Phoebe as anything but a helpful servant of God whom Paul praised for her efforts. She was one of the "saints" chosen by God to serve in his heavenly temple with Christ. But on earth, she was a woman who was well aware of her place in God's arrangement.

That is hilarious - read My post # 103.

It is translated as servant in only 7 places, 6 are talking about actual servants, - only one, Romans 16:1, where the translators want a woman to be a servant rather then a Diakonos/Ministerr is Diakonos translated as servant rather than Deiakonos/Minister. All the others are translated as Diakonos

Yes, all who served God in specific roles within the congregations were called "servants". Jesus is called God's "holy servant". (Acts 4:30)

Jesus was also called High Priest.

What do you think a congregation is? The "church" was the people congregated together in whatever location was convenient...it wasn't the building. The first Christians met in the homes of their fellow believers. They were still a church.

What is your point? The translators are purposely changing the words to LESSER value in the verses talking about women, but not the men.

Of course he had women disciples....that is not in dispute. A woman's role was not lesser, but different.

Disciples, and Apostles, and Diakonos/Ministers, just as the male followers. According to the Biblestories, he bucked the rules.

Woman were to have a supporting role in the congregation and in the family. (Like a corporation or government always has a vice president in case there is a problem, both can work on a solution together)

This was not an excuse to exercise chauvinism or dictatorship however. Respect was to be given to a wife who knew her place and served God within those parameters assigned by him. Humility prevents a woman from usurping the male role and taking on the responsibility given to men. God never gave her that right. She has a full share in the service of God and is content to do her utmost within that assignment. Women who act outside of their role will never prosper spiritually because they will not have God's blessing. There were no human women priests in Bible times and there are no genuine ones today. Women who have been chosen to go to heaven will lay aside their gender in order to become priests in the Kingdom of God...but not while they are in the flesh.

It doesn't matter what the old taught, - as he obviously bucked the rules concerning women. Taught them, traveled with them, housed with them, took their money, touched them, etc. They were disciples, apostles, and Diakonos/Ministers of churches.

As for the highlighted parts - I think that is bull.

You make me smile....it says no such thing. "Greet An·dronʹi·cus and Juʹni·as, my relatives and fellow prisoners, who are well-known to the apostles and who have been in union with Christ longer than I have."

Both were men apparently as no known woman was ever called an apostle.

Do you know what an apostle is? It simply means "one sent forth" so there were many apostles, but the 12 were the foundations upon which Christianity was to grow after Jesus left the earthly scene. Jesus became our High Priest when he returned to present the value of his sacrifice to God. (Hebrews 9:24)

Church father Chrysostom referred to Junias as a woman (Homily on Romans 31.7; NPNF 1, 11:555) And many more recent scholars also come to this conclusion.

"In Romans 16:7, Paul praises a woman named Junia as "outstanding among the apostles." Despite the modern mistranslation of her name as masculine "Junias" or "Junius," no commentator prior to the 13th century questioned that this apostle was a woman.1 For example, John Chrysostom, whose writings often express misogyny, wrote of Romans 16:7, "O how great is the devotion of this woman that she should be counted worthy of the appellation of apostle!"2 This unanimity of testimony over a milennium is particularly striking since it remained during a long period of eroding toleration of women's ministries in the medieval church. The reason for the witness is simple: all the ancient Greek and Latin manuscripts commending the oustanding apostles in Romans 16:7 read either "Junia" or "Julia", both feminine forms." The Apostle Junia

http://www.stjuniashouse.com/html/sj_pdf/WhoWasStJunia.pdf

διακονος - Inclusive Orthodoxy

προστατις - Inclusive Orthodoxy

And here is a depiction of the lovely Apostle - Note her name on the right.

Jesus had the correct view of women. But as a devout Jew, he abided by his Father's laws with regard to gender. The announcement of his resurrection was kind of a test for the males of that time who often discounted the words of women. When they checked out what Mary said for themselves, they found she was telling the truth.

Since Paul's words are unambiguous, women were never to become teachers in the congregation. (1 Corinthians 11:8-12) They were fellow workers at the side of the apostles and in serving others in the congregations....but teachers only outside the congregation.

Paul whom did not know Jesus, says "I," not Jesus. That's a no-go.

*

 

[syo]

God has a penis, does he?

no, he is the active force. the active force is male, and the passive is female.

 

[pearl]

A man made religion, such as the Catholics, may forbid it, but that surely doesn’t make it right.

The Catholic Church forbids it based not on Scripture, but on Tradition. Its own biblical scholars determined neither argument could be supported by Scripture.

 

[Tiberius]

no, he is the active force. the active force is male, and the passive is female.

That's a bit sexist, isn't it?

 

[kiwimac]

There were female apostles in the early years of the church and frescos in Rome show what are quite clearly women performing the roles of priests and bishops. But as far as that goes there is no need to us today to follow the later church only ordaining men,

 

[Ingledsva]

no, he is the active force. the active force is male, and the passive is female.

Only in the minds of the patriarchal.

*

 

[pearl]

The NT is silent concerning Christian priests. One possible reason it that the early Christians acknowledged the Jewish priesthood as valid and never thought of a priesthood of their own. It is erroneous to assume that Christianity was thought of as a new religion with its own religious institutions. Rather Christians understood themselves as the renewed Israel, not a new Israel. Not until the Epistle of Barnabas is there found the first explicit mention of Christians as 'the new people.'

 

[syo]

That's a bit sexist, isn't it?

no. male and female must differ somewhere.

 

[Tiberius]

no. male and female must differ somewhere.

Of course, but to claim that Men are the ones who do things and Woman are the ones who have things done to them is sexist. It portrays women as weak helpless creatures who can't do anything and need a big strong man to come and take control of the situation.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

no. male and female must differ somewhere.

Just use active/passive instead of male/female. It has nothing to do with gender, anyway.

 

[midopafo]

some christian denominations allow women priests. why? on what ground?

Is not the age of Aquarius, it is the age of the female.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Just use active/passive instead of male/female. It has nothing to do with gender, anyway.

What makes you think women are passive or that men are active.
I would suggest that there is nothing to choose between them in this way.

In nature the female is nearly always the most active and dominant sex. Even though the males are often the more powerful.

 

[syo]

Of course, but to claim that Men are the ones who do things and Woman are the ones who have things done to them is sexist. It portrays women as weak helpless creatures who can't do anything and need a big strong man to come and take control of the situation.

but being passive isn't weakness. not at all. and it isn't helpless. and it is not out of control. passive is not derogatory.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

What makes you think women are passive or that men are active.
I would suggest that there is nothing to choose between them in this way.

In nature the female is nearly always the most active and dominant sex. Even though the males are often the more powerful.

What? I said it doesn't have anything to do with gender. You must've misread my post.

 

[Tiberius]

but being passive isn't weakness. not at all. and it isn't helpless. and it is not out of control. passive is not derogatory.

But passive by its very definition means having things done to you, not doing things for yourself.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

What? I said it doesn't have anything to do with gender. You must've misread my post.

Sorry I shold have replied to @syo.
Just finger trouble....

 

[syo]

But passive by its very definition means having things done to you, not doing things for yourself.

so?