blackbelt1961
Well-Known Member
I guess your right about it being in your mindIn my mind, "Junia" was just something slapped onto the text by liberal scholars.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I guess your right about it being in your mindIn my mind, "Junia" was just something slapped onto the text by liberal scholars.
Jae is trolling again ... step away, step away ... it will be ever thus ...
Early along the way I heard Jesus speak about searching the scripture. He encouraged it. Why? Those who wrestle with scripture, as Jacob wrestled with the angel, will be blessed by the revelation of the living Christ.
Those who take the Bible to be the living word of God are idolaters.
Who I worship is the living Christ who comes to people including me through the Bible.
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ.
Of course not. The point (made by bb) is still a good one, in my view.
Clearly one can see this mostly in the RC churchIndeed. At that time in history it would be unthinkable for anyone BUT a Jew to be part of Jesus' immediate circle. Similarly at that time in history it would be equally radical for women to be part of Jesus' immediate circle (which is why it is so fascinating that there are hints that women were, in fact, in positions of leadership). We understand the role of context for the former, why not the latter? Because in a patriarchal culture it suits (some) men as a justification for ensuring that all key positions of authority remain controlled by men.
Along that vein, most NT scholars I know argue that Jesus, for his time, was radically inclusive of women. We have Biblical narratives that tell us that. We have archaeological evidence that suggest women wrote Gospels, and had positions of leadership. That shifted when the early Christian community because integrated into the mainstream, patriarchal culture. As Christianity become more accepted it adopted the norms of the dominant culture - which were patriarchal.
Indeed. At that time in history it would be unthinkable for anyone BUT a Jew to be part of Jesus' immediate circle. Similarly at that time in history it would be equally radical for women to be part of Jesus' immediate circle (which is why it is so fascinating that there are hints that women were, in fact, in positions of leadership). We understand the role of context for the former, why not the latter? Because in a patriarchal culture it suits (some) men as a justification for ensuring that all key positions of authority remain controlled by men.
Along that vein, most NT scholars I know argue that Jesus, for his time, was radically inclusive of women. We have Biblical narratives that tell us that. We have archaeological evidence that suggest women wrote Gospels, and had positions of leadership. That shifted when the early Christian community because integrated into the mainstream, patriarchal culture. As Christianity become more accepted it adopted the norms of the dominant culture - which were patriarchal.
Lets not forget about Lilith who was made equal which sort of jibes with the " other" version of adam and eve in Genesis where both male and female are made equal.
And there is a beautiful story about Paul and Thecla which was conveniently not chosen by the fathers of the church to be included in the New Testment. Probably because she was a woman that was powerful.
Which is quite unfortunate because this was a very well known story in the early church....she once was quite renowned. She dared to baptize herself to the cheers of other women.Well, that's one theory. Another would be that such accounts were simply unworthy of being included in the canon.
Which is quite unfortunate because this was a very well known story in the early church....she once was quite renowned. She dared to baptize herself to the cheers of other women.
Thecla - WikipediaThe Princess and the Pea is also a well known story that many have delighted in.
I'm with Northwind here. That is toxic theology.
There is also strong archaeological evidence to suggest that women held positions of leadership in the early Christian church and that those positions of leadership were minimized by the patriarchal culture of the day. This misogyny has, in turn, been extended for centuries by the ongoing patriarchal culture of the modern church. When considered within the context of the ancient Jews Jesus was a pretty radical feminist and my guess is he would be appalled many of the decisions of many contemporary churches.
And people who feel the need to control need that over others so they feel worthy. That goes against Jesus' teaching
but neither is your view on men as leaders, just because the apostles were men, at least my view is supported by Christ character and teachings throughout the gospels, your interpretation is not.
your view is as bad as say Peter was the first pope and the line of succession of popes and authority
its a simple , power grab
So you say. I, of course, disagree. For example, there must have been something in Christ's character and reasoning that led him to choose only men to be his 12. Moreover, male leadership is primary throughout the Scriptures. Yes, there were some women who held some leadership positions, but male leadership was the norm.
Who was Eve's mother?