Priesthood for women

[_subgenius]

Does not Jesus convey consecrating authority at the last supper?

I appreciate that Catholics view it that way. Are you arguing that Jesus appointed men to preside over the Eucharist from that? I don't see why it would follow...

i believe it is interesting in the intimate setting that Christ would give such instruction...that among these 12 he conveyed such an important aspect of Christianity...this was not something He had offered at some mass gathering but rather among the Apostles...which falls in line with other similar ordinance instructions He dictated.

What about the authority Jesus speaks about in Matthew 28:18-19?
"And Jesus came and spoke unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go you therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit"

I think you will find that many scholars argue that this is a later interpolation. Just a thought, when Jesus was baptized by John, what words did John use? 'I baptize you in the name of the father, son and Holy Ghost' I think probably not. But who knows.

They may argue but are you saying that Jesus did not make such a commandment?
It would be unreasonable for John to have said, during Jesus' baptism, that which He had not yet commanded...besides John recognized the authority in Jesus over such an ordinance when he first tried to deter Jesus.

"Is any sick among you? Let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord" James 5:14

Presbuteros, or Presbuteras, simply meant old man or old women. The Elderly were given respect as mature in judgment.

actually this type of prayer by elders was because when the elders prayed it was the same as having the whole church pray...there was a recognized "authority"...they were recognized as being able to represent the church.

"For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man." (John 5:26-27)
or
"And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach" (Mark 3:14)
or
"Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you." (John 15:16)
and
"And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron." (Hebrews 5:4) - noting that Aaron was called by Moses as instructed by God.

None of this indicates that women are not called in a like manner subgenius? This isn't about priesthood, necessarily, but about Jesus calling people to teach others to follow his message. His way.

i disagree...what these verses clearly indicate is that :
1. No women are being called for these specific tasks
2. No women are Apostles.
3. Aaron's calling is arguably one of priesthood authority.

Who called Paul? Not the Jerusalem contingent. He claims a calling direct from God by revelation.

arguably the same claim you are making here. It is not by chapter and verse but by revelation that you are claiming the Priesthood for women.

I think you should consider an important observation about women and the priesthood as it relates to the LDS Temple recommend.
Both man and woman must be baptized to enter the Temple...but...a man must be worthy and be a priesthood bearer...a woman need only be worthy.
why do you suppose that it is? By that comparison a man is easily seen to be intrinsically less than a woman and therefore more is required of him.

How about spiritual progress? A woman spiritual progresses unfeigned by ordinations to the priesthood...whereas a man can certainly be impeded in his progress without them.

When in the Temple we see women along side of men...both as ordinance workers...not one in service of the other.

and the last point being...no man can reach the highest degree of priesthood power without a woman...they must be married in the Temple....sealed as one. This oneness is not temporary nor is it only in force within the walls of the Temple.

I wouldn't confuse policy and cultural convention with 'eternal truth' Whatever 'eternal truth' is... I still don't see one good reason why women can't be Prophets, Popes, bishops, deacons, within any christian organisation. I'm not convinced by anything you have mentioned.

It is a clear manifestation. Personally, i believe the evidence supports the notion that women have and maintain more Christ like attributes than men...that men need the priesthood by God's design. Just as this topic has you seeking resolution caused by the circumstance of culture and convention of your own life...as if these latter qualities are somehow always smokescreens and shadows.
Thank you for your insights and provocations.

[Guest]

...

[_Mary]

Okay, I'm on vacation for the moment (France) and have not been able to give this the attention I would like, but I will respond to one of your points Mktavish, then off to Amiens.

Instead of asking the question from an Idealistic approach to how it should be. Ask the question of why it is the way it is ? And how did it get that way?
Sort of like , why does this combination of chemicals produce this reaction ? And what can I add to the concoction to get the desired result.

Could you please clear the blood from my furrowed brow, where I have been hitting it against the wall.

If I haven't explained it before let me explain my view again.

1) The Messianic Jesus movements (note I say Jesus movements, not Jesus movement) grew out of quite a cultural Milliieu of different sects of Judaism, all with different emphases but bound by their ethnicity and belief in Monotheism of one kind of another. Examples. The Jesus Movement, The Baptist Movement, The Samaritans, The Mandeans, The Essenes (Philo and Josephus both mention them), The Sadducees, The Pharisees, The Zealots. Doubtless there were other groups with greater or lesser levels of sectarianism. All of this makes it difficult to know just how Patriarchal Jesus was in his standpoint, but I'm guessing, by what remains in the Gospels of the first few centuries that his and Paul's attitude was more egalitarian than much of the outer Greek and Roman Society from which they arose and were probably influenced by. The 'embarrassing' evidence for this remains in the text of the New Testament as it stands today, even with the later redactions, interpolations and development of theology.

2) It seems to me that Christianity was never one cohesive whole, and that started even with disagreements among the Apostles on how to proceed, on Jesus liberal attitude to authority, (which they seemed to recognise as his authentic teaching) and on the bias of converts around the Mediterranian Basin all of whom bought their own prejudice and ways of life with them.

3) The work of the Apostolic Fathers and writers of works such as 1 Clement and the Didache are evidence that the movements were diverse doctrinally, and that one of the biggest challenges of many of the fledgling house churches in diverse areas was just how Jewish one should be.

4) The other big development, when the Parousia didn't come quickly was how the movements should be led and organised and how Jesus should be viewed. Christological differences and concerns are there in the Synoptic and Johannine texts.

5) How do women fit into this? It's messy, but there is good evidence that in the words of Paul, for a while there were neither bond nor free, male nor FEMALE, rich nor poor.

[_Yoda]

Okay, I'm on vacation for the moment (France) and have not been able to give this the attention I would like, but I will respond to one of your points Mktavish, then off to Amiens.

Instead of asking the question from an Idealistic approach to how it should be. Ask the question of why it is the way it is ? And how did it get that way?
Sort of like , why does this combination of chemicals produce this reaction ? And what can I add to the concoction to get the desired result.

Could you please clear the blood from my furrowed brow, where I have been hitting it against the wall.

If I haven't explained it before let me explain my view again.

1) The Messianic Jesus movements (note I say Jesus movements, not Jesus movement) grew out of quite a cultural Milliieu of different sects of Judaism, all with different emphases but bound by their ethnicity and belief in Monotheism of one kind of another. Examples. The Jesus Movement, The Baptist Movement, The Samaritans, The Mandeans, The Essenes (Philo and Josephus both mention them), The Sadducees, The Pharisees, The Zealots. Doubtless there were other groups with greater or lesser levels of sectarianism. All of this makes it difficult to know just how Patriarchal Jesus was in his standpoint, but I'm guessing, by what remains in the Gospels of the first few centuries that his and Paul's attitude was more egalitarian than much of the outer Greek and Roman Society from which they arose and were probably influenced by. The 'embarrassing' evidence for this remains in the text of the New Testament as it stands today, even with the later redactions, interpolations and development of theology.

2) It seems to me that Christianity was never one cohesive whole, and that started even with disagreements among the Apostles on how to proceed, on Jesus liberal attitude to authority, (which they seemed to recognise as his authentic teaching) and on the bias of converts around the Mediterranian Basin all of whom bought their own prejudice and ways of life with them.

3) The work of the Apostolic Fathers and writers of works such as 1 Clement and the Didache are evidence that the movements were diverse doctrinally, and that one of the biggest challenges of many of the fledgling house churches in diverse areas was just how Jewish one should be.

4) The other big development, when the Parousia didn't come quickly was how the movements should be led and organised and how Jesus should be viewed. Christological differences and concerns are there in the Synoptic and Johannine texts.

5) How do women fit into this? It's messy, but there is good evidence that in the words of Paul, for a while there were neither bond nor free, male nor FEMALE, rich nor poor.

I wholeheartedly agree with this. That is one of the reasons I find the Gnostic Gospels so compelling.

[_Mary]

I wholeheartedly agree with this. That is one of the reasons I find the Gnostic Gospels so compelling.

Mktavish might like this site. Just to get an overview of the diversity of thought in early christianity. The list includes gnostic writings.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

I like the way they put the writings in a general date order. Mark is early, John, with it's high christology and views on the 'Logos' is quite late.

[_Mary]

Pliny was a governor in Bithynia and Pontus from 111-113. On the Christians, he writes this -

Accordingly, I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/pliny.html

[_ludwigm]

Pliny was a governor in Bithynia and Pontus from 111-113.

[off !]
As far as it is translated correctly...

Gaius Plinius Secundus (AD 23 – August 25, AD 79)

(better known as Pliny the Elder) by stupid english speakers.

Gaius Plinius Caecilius Secundus, born Gaius Caecilius or Gaius Caecilius Cilo (61 AD – ca. 112 AD)

(better known as Pliny the Younger) see above...



Poor Romans and Greeks.
Poor Quintus Horatius Flaccus. (Horace)
Poor Publius Vergilius Maro (Vergil/Virgil)
Poor Homeros (Homer, Greek: Ὅμηρος [hómɛːros], Hómēros)
Why is not called Caesar Augustus "August"?
Why is not called Julius Caesar "Gay July"?
Why is called Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus "Pompey"?
Why is called Porphyrios "Porphyry"?
Poor Eukleidés (Greek: Εὐκλείδης) (Euclid)

Archimedes is Archimedes.
Lucius Mestrius Plutarchos (Λούκιος Μέστριος Πλούταρχος), who wrote about Archimedes - is Plutarch.
Claudius Ptolemaeus (Κλαύδιος Πτολεμαῖος, Klaudios Ptolemaios) is Ptolemy.

Marcus Antonius is Marc Antony, moreover Mark Antony...

Damn English language

[_Mary]

Ludwigm...where did you get your Greek font from?

[_Mary]

Διάκονος.... my husband just taught me. Πόλυ καλό...!

[Guest]

...