Can Women Teach and Preach in the Church? (faith, Catholic, apostles)

[Heartsong]

If by "church" you mean the body of Christ, the simple answer is YES.

What goes on in the various denominations of organized religion is largely controlled by men.

[GoodToBeHome]

Originally Posted by lovesMountains

That's a pretty arrogant statement. Somehow I don't think this kind of comment makes God proud of you.

I think God is very proud of me for saying that because it is His truth. Research and get back to me.

[Ceist]

Originally Posted by Richard1965

Read the rest of it, it refers to an overseer as a HE...And there is the fact that Moses had more than one wife and HaShem gave the Law through him and he led Israel...So, if Paul were including women as overseers, then why did he not just say an overseer is to have one spouse, they do have a Greek word that is not gender specific for 'spouse'...

...

Paul lived 2000 years ago in a patriarchal male-dominated culture. What would you expect?

[Ceist]

Originally Posted by Richard1965

A life Application bible is someone elses opinion of what it says...Using one, to me, is laziness...You want someone else to tell you what it means...

Any English translation is 'someone else's opinion'. And Greek or Hebrew lexicon is 'someone else's opinion'.

[Ceist]

Originally Posted by Richard1965

Show me these manuscripts...And Paul did not say that Junias was an apostle....

You don't know what the earliest Greek manuscripts are?

in Papyrus 46 (circa 200) the name is Julia (a woman's name)
In most others up to the 12th century, the name is Junia (a woman's name)


Paul wrote Andronicus and Junia were outstanding among the apostles.

How do explain that Junia was a common name for a woman in the first century, (as was Julia) and that the name 'Junias' for a man was virtually unknown?

How do you explain that Origen (185 – 253), John Chrysostom (347–407), and Jerome (347-420) all referred to Junia as a woman?

Here is what John Chrysostom (who wasn't a big fan of women) wrote about Junia:

"O how great is the devotion of this woman that she should be counted worthy of the appellation of apostle?

[cpg35223]

Originally Posted by Dave Michaels

I am just telling you what the word means. And how it was used in context. It's right there in the bible. I didn't write. I just read it and study it.

Perhaps you need to take a second look. He used the word diakonos in Romans to describe Phoebe, just the same way he used the word in 1 Timothy when he was laying out the function of church offices. Not 'servant,' as some people dishonestly translate. Paul had a very specific definition of the word diakonos, namely using it to describe a church leader. When discussing the role of a diakonos in the ancient church, he laid out the duties of that person. So unless Paul just didn't understand what he was writing, it's pretty safe to assume that perhaps he didn't mind that Phoebe was traveling to Rome, the most important city of the ancient world in order to undertake a leadership function, just the way she had at Cenchrea.

[Ceist]

Originally Posted by GoodToBeHome

Your thread title should read: "Can Women Teach and Preach in a Church?" The answer to the original thread title is no because women will never become priests in the Catholic Church.

Never say never.

The Catholic Church would never change their views that the sun revolved around the earth.

[Richard1965]

Originally Posted by lovesMountains

It's just ONE tool in an active search to interpret God's Word as accurately as possible. There are many other "tools".

True laziness is only reading the King James and doing nothing else but taking everything in it completely literally

I prefer the Hebrew and Greek along with the study of common idioms of the day...Understanding of metaphors and parables and allegorys...for which I do not need someone else telling what it means unless they are telling me what they think it means and are willing to discuss it in a logical and reasonable manner in order to ascertain whether one is seeing it correctly or not...For instance, I have had arguements, not discussions, over the meaning of the parable of the Rich Man And Lazarus, many believe that it is a depiction of believer/non-believer, heaven/hell...
Luk 16:19 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:

]If one looks in the OT one will find that Israel was rich, for they were HaShem's chosen people, a light unto the Gentiles, Israel had not want...Purple and fine linen herein are symbolic of the Priesthood, which Israel was called to be a 'Holy Nation, a Nation of Priests'...Israel feasted daily on blessings from HaShem...


Luk 16:20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,
Luk 16:21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.

]Here we see the poor man, a beggar, symbolic of the Gentiles, who were outside the blessings of HaShem, who had no part in the inheritance and where beggars in the sense that if they were among or near the Israelites, then maybe some of the crumbs of blessings would fall from the feasting table of Israel...And here the beggar has a name, Lazarus, akin to the name of Abraham's Gentile servant, whom he was going to leave everthing to for he had no heir, however, HaShem told him no...Why is the beggar named but not he Rich Man?...The reference to dogs here is also telling, Jews woud have nothing to do with this animal, for it was unclean, a scavenger, they would no more allow a dog to touch them than they would a pig...


Luk 16:22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;

]Here the bosom of Abraham is a Hebraic Idiom meaning a place of honor...But, the rich man was not whisked off to hell, he was buried or went to the place of the unseen...This may be metaphoric for the change of places of the Israelites and the Gentiles...

Luk 16:23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

Hell here literally means grave or the abode of the unseen, no longer is HaShem looking on Israel, they have been shut out, for a time, till the fullness of the Genties has come...Here, Israel sees this and is in torment...

Luk 16:24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

Here is the switch, Israel is now looking on the Gentiles and the blessings of HaShem on them and begging for the crumbs that may fall from the Gentile feast table...


Luk 16:25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.

Israel indeed received many good things during their dispensation, and the Gentiles were on their own...So, now the Gentile is receiving blessings and Israel is on their own...The switch...If one notices, Abraham calls him 'Son', Abraham was the father of Israel...


Luk 16:26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.

Remember, HaShem has blinded the Jews...

Luk 16:27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:
Luk 16:28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.

Who had five brothers in the OT?...Judah, his five brothers were, Reuben, Simeon and Levi, and Issachar and Zebulun...If this verse were about warning people in general from going to hell, then why not just name one person, or name many people, why just the number 'Five'...It is an indication, that herein, Israel is being mentioned symbolically..


Luk 16:29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

By Abraham stating this, it is indicating that the Jews are the central them here...

Luk 16:30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
Luk 16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

Who rose from the dead and who had Moses and the Prophets but still were blind to who they saw before them?...

I respond with this here in order to show that many, instead of studying themselves, go to another source for the meaning and fail to confirm what they read in the source as valid or unvalid...Many sources I have read in the past were written in such a way as to guide one into the understanding that the author wishes to convey, whether it is valid or not, it is the authors belief and much of the time not based on indepth research...Merely a superficial reading and understanding...

[Richard1965]

Originally Posted by Jaymax

Paul lived 2000 years ago in a patriarchal male-dominated culture. What would you expect?

So, you are telling me that HaShem deals with man according to man's current culture instead of Dealing with man according to HaShem's own standards?...

[Ceist]

Originally Posted by Richard1965

....Many sources I have read in the past were written in such a way as to guide one into the understanding that the author wishes to convey, whether it is valid or not, it is the authors belief and much of the time not based on indepth research...Merely a superficial reading and understanding...

Just like that 13th century copyist who believed that the Junia Paul referred to in Romans 16:7 HAD to be a man, so changed it to Junias