Well I do apologize if you felt a need to bang your head at my comments , ruining your vacation.
No worries, it was just my attempt at some bland humour

But I'm not trying to convince you of how involved women were back in the early Christian movement , and I don't really think its going to change the here and now situation anyways.
I'm more hopeful Mktavish, that the role of women in at least some of the early Jesus Movments 'WILL' change the here and now.
The Church of England in it's recent vote on the ordination of women to the position of Bishops (they can already be vicars, deaconesses, etc) indicated that those in the know theologically - ie the House of Bishops, and the House of Clergy, voted FOR with a comfortable majority. It was the Laity that voted against, by a small majority of about 6 votes.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/no ... en-bishops
If you can't tell , my line of thinking has been free'd from the notion that there has been divine guidance in the gospel over the ages. And has just been shaped by humans subject to evolutionary processes.
If you want to believe in divine guidance , it does make it harder to argue for women holding the priesthood.
From an LDS point of view maybe. But even taking an evolutionary standpoint, and certainly a social anthropological one, movements have had to adapt to survive. Infact the LDS church is a perfect example of that.
As far as Jesus was concerned IMHO ... I don't think he had a preference either way with respect to gender , and was soley focused on the individual leaving stereo type labels out of the equation.
Agreed.
Which is the whole basis of your point ? (correct?)
Yep!