Still puzzled.
Words in blue in my posts are links. You click on them to see the quotes and sources I am referencing. Have you done that?
I have on occasion. I looke dover Metacrocks entry. I missed the dictionary, I am tired.
I showed you where the Interlinear shows the Greek does not say that.
I gave you the link to the Theological Dictionary, which tells which dictionary it is.
Actualy the Interlienaries I use do not accord the interpretation you have offered, and I'd also suggest perhaps the one you ued is beign misapplied.
I gave you several links to the quote by Chrysostom. Here's another.
http://www.womenpriests.org/classic/brooten.asp. There is an endnote reference with the quote which gives its source, at the bottom of the article. Even if you don't agree with the point the quote is being used to support, it is nevertheless a real quote.
And it is from an unreputable soruce with a clear bias which has also no scruples in amendign how thigns are seen to fit their own agenda. I have seen much falsity form them.
As for the Fathers, I never said I considered them as more than respected historical references. Still, it's interesting that Chrysostom said what he said about this.
I would, however, prefer to read his words, and not jump to Hasty cpnclusions.
It is still also the cae that he was of the last fothe Fathers, and lived to see the beginnign fo the collapse of the ROman EMpire. He wa snot a witness to the Apostles himself.
I did not deny that women where in some important and vital roles for the early Church, but we have no record of thewm preaching sermons and holding services.
We have them instead delivering letters, helping in feeding the poor, orginising events in cities, but never do we see them in the role of the Preacher.
Is this not Piculiar to you?
It isnt to me as I'd say they never held such positions.
It is still a denial of Scripture to say otherwise.
It is not difficult to figure out why this should be the case, given the misogyny of the cultures where the Gospel was spreading at the time, the seclusion and lack of education experienced by most women, etc. Women in Paul's day were not ready to teach, having never been allowed to learn anything until after Christianity came. And quite frankly, if a woman had been made a minister of a church, the church would have had no converts. The surrounding cultures considered women little better than animals.
Speculation is far too often proven wrong.
Pagan and Jew alike had revered women, from Deborah to Hephestia, who held their posiitons within their societies.
Casting the blame upon the Mysogyny of the culture still lacks evidence that the Scripture permits women to hold the position of the Preacher, and is instead idle opinion in regard to the matter. Given the precice nature of the early Church andhow often it contradicted, even unto the death f its memebrs, those who lived around them, I still find htis a weak argument. When taken into consideraiton how women where revered and womeen whre proclaimed as the Great Saints, Early Among them AMary Mother of Jesus and Mary Magdalene, Joan, And later Thecla, Tabitha, and others, and given the Honour that was bestowed upon those women, and htis wihtin the ifrts two centuries of CHristendom, I do nogt think we can say the ealry Churhc suffered for the Mysogyny of the culture that surroudns it. Not, at leats,, without expainign how then it elevated to promenance so many women, as to be known as a Religion of slaves and women.
The links I missed. I've been tired of late, but I noted oen above, and shall say I have seen it before. I will addres sit in due order.
It's quite clear Paul didn't think this way. It's clear he wanted women included as full people, allowed to learn and grow, but he knew it would take time.
How is reserving to men the role of Preacher denyign women the fact that they are full people?
I think the Greek reading of 1 Tim 2:12 makes it pretty clear that Paul was saying women could not teach until they had learned.
But you have not read it in Greek. You have relied upon an interlienary, and do not speak Koine Greek. I do not either, and can eaisly find soemone who will show the dame Greek passage but show the reverse conclusion.
We must take care when speaking of hte true meanign of an original language we do not ourselves speak, and such care prevents me from actign upon this argument of yours, since you do not know the Greek well enough to read it with its Nuances.
I again mena no offence, but it is impossible for me to take that as an arugment I'd be comfortable making. I know from expeirnce that when I learned German, and knew little of it, I made enormosu errors due to not knowign the tences and forms of the language well enough.
Can we truly relie upon this from either of us, when neither of us know the GReek well?
We can of ocruse look up the original words and offer our view, but it is not sound a case to speak it.
I do know though that the Early Church did not view the text as permittign women to preach,and they did speak Koine Greek. You may say that thewir intepretation fo the Greek text was flawed by a Bias rootedint he Mysogyny of their culture,but what evidence do you have that this is the case?
I still must reject the proposiiton forlack of evidence.
But does he really mean that no matter how much women learn, that is all they can ever do?
No one said this was all women coudl ever do, and owmen did do many things.We are, however, discussing a spacific role they are told not to do.
I note that in Acts 18:26, Prisca and Aquila, husband and wife, both took Apollos aside and "explained to him the way of God more accurately." So Prisca, at least, taught Apollos-- though given the culture, I doubt very much if he would have listened to her without Aquila.
Yet you have no evidence outside of how you think the culture was and how you assume the peopel woudl react.
Again you have no direct evidence, and only supposiiton based upon the presumption fo hwo peopel behaved.
A woman, then, who had "learned" apparently did "teach a man." There is no evidence that Aquila, or Paul, tried to stop her, or in any way condemned her for what she had done.
But, she did not find herself in the role of an official teacher, and was not preachign sermons and holdign classes.
I myself have said such things where permitted earlier.
It still doens't speak to the matter at hand.
Similar, then, would be Junia's case. If she was a woman (and from all I've read I think this the most likely), then she was probably the wife of Andronicus.
Assumption again, as there is no evidence.
SHe may have been th wife of another, or unmarried.
Many women int eh ealry Churhc chose diliberatley not to wed.
We cannot say.
We cannot even say for certain that Junia was a woman.
Though the two of them were "apostles,"
Neither where said to be Apostles. Again, even itn eh GReek, the tex doesn't say they where. It merely says they where held in high regard by the Apostles.
they were part of a larger, later group, not of the same rank or standing as the 12, or Paul. But if Junia did exercise the duties of apostleship (such as church planting), she would have done it along with her husband, or no one would have accepted her.
Accordign to whom?
THecla, a famous Saint and COntemporary of The Apostle Paul, was a Sacred Virign, who never married, and yet her mission work is renouned int eh Ancient CHurch.
All this talk of Mysogany and claism that women woudl never be listeendtoand had otgo with their husbands ignores compleltey her.
It ignroes other owmen in the early Church who did similar feats, and that ghey did htis in the ealry Church.
No, I'm afraid I am unimpressed by the constant reliance upon the claim of a Mysogynist culture and how women woudl not be heard, and the presumptiosn fo marital relationships we cannot know existed.
Int he case of Thecla we kow she had no Husband. This did not slow herdown.
Why thenought I think it woudl others?
In any event, what we have is this. Early Christianity sought more inclusive roles for women within its ranks than was at all common.
This has not beendenied,but thee is still a principel of order.
Women in Christianity were considered full human beings, able to learn, and were given roles such that they were called 'co-workers" in the Gospel.
Not only was this not denied but I have sated such myself.
But at the time of Christianity's inception, most women were still years away from being able to take any serious leadership roles, and probably generations from any kind of real acceptance of such by the surrounding cultures. And then most of the Apostles were martyred.
All but John diedcruel deaths at the hands of their enemies.
THis said, your makign rpesumptiosn again,presumptiosn supportedonly by your beleif in what the ancient world waslike,that is conflicting with theevidence I have seen before.
Women did speak, and women did in the early Church go fourth and spread the GOspel, and not always with their Husbands , lest they be unheard, and many of those owmen became Saints.
All in the early years of the Church.
What they did not do, was Preach the Gospel as Ministers.
They where never PResbyters, and never Bishops.
Still, they where heard, and listened to.
As an example of what usually happens when the founders of something are removed-- my father was hired by the engineering company Hewlett-Packard in the days when Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard still ran the company. I still remember his lamentations about how the company drifted from Hewlett and Packard's original conception within a very short time after they retired. At one point, Packard even came back for a time to restore his original vision.
Wal-Mart is another good example, as is Sears. But this doens't speak tot he Church as our leader is not dead, nor retired, and still direct sour steps.
A livign God, and eternal Lord Jeuss CHrist, guides his Church.
We have but to listen.
If this can happen within just a decade or so in an ordinary, wordly business, is Christianity entirely immune? I think not. I think that after Paul's death, the idea of women "not teaching yet" went on being, "not yet," and "not yet" eventually got replaced by "not teaching ever." And so there never was a time when "not yet" became "now."
But can it not be argued that the current posiiton you hold that women shoudl be permited to preach is instead the innovation, and you are those hwo took over Hewlett Packard after the founders retired?
It certainly seems that you want to change what is written and how we do htings to suit your views, nd if these views lack historical creedence, one must wonder if, instead of the Ealry Apostles willing htat women shoudl preach, but the ealry Chruhc after thier deaht denied it, perhaps modern man permits it, and changes the direction of the Church to suit his own ends.
As for "anointing," as I used it, the meaning is simply "giftedness." My pastor saw the giftedness of these Chinese women as leaders, and believed that such gifts were from God-- indeed, that God appeared to be specifically blessing these women in this particular exercise of their gift. For it is apparent that some women are 'born leaders." Why should that be only in the secular culture? Is not leadership talent a gift from God?
You still conuse the role of the PReacher with that of a leader, and this is not what he PReacher is.
Leadership is not the role of those who minister the Gospel, but serivce, and it is not for them to stand before others with skills and talnets to lead, btu skills and talents only to minister.
It is still written, and it is still binding. Let those women practice the Gospel, and let them teahc others of it and do good for the CHurh, but let us reserve for the Pulpit the role of Men, for it is what was written, and what we do know.
As for this:
I have heard praise for them. I cannot be moved.
So if a woman does well, it means nothing. But if she messes up, she becomes a "horror story," to use your own words-- an example as to why women shouldn't be allowed. Doesn't this attitude seem just a little unfair?
No, what seems unfair is your misunderstandign of what I had said before. When I referenced the role of women as Ministers and called htm Horror Stories, it was in reference to others who have written their own testamonies and have re[ported only the bad, justa s you linked to a testamony which reporte doly the good.
I never said that each time a woman preaches it is a horror to behold, nor intnded I that. I thougth it obvious when I posted it that I meant that testamonial evidence as you had linked can be coutnered with those who ar eon the oposing side, and is oflittleworth in determining the truth of the Scriptures.
I said nothing otherwise of how omen actually perform, and only addressed the problem inherant in the approach you had used.
But I probably should stop here. I'm not going to convince you, and you're not going to convince me. You will, I'm sure, find all kinds of ways to pick apart everything I just said. I will note, though, that you never have given me the kind of quotes, sources and references for your position that I have been providing all along for mine.
I providd you with scripture. I have then defended the traditional eading o the Scripture. I need less evidence for that.
I have also noted Thecla, and other early women as Saints, this is a notation.
I have also spoken of the task at hand that you have to show the culture was as you described.
Other than this, there must needs be silence.
I stand, after all, upon the Scriptures, and this is what they say. Shoudl I then be faulted for it?