Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Female Clergy
I don't quite understand this: Do These Ancient Paintings Prove There Were Female Priests in the Early Church?.

Quote:New questions are emerging about the role of women in the early Christian church after the Vatican this week unveiled recently restored frescoes in the Catacombs of Priscilla in Rome.

Some say the paintings depict women serving as priests during Christianity’s beginning centuries — a contention the Vatican is calling the stuff of “fairy tales.”

I was taught this in my Ancient Civ course, at the Citadel, in 1966. I assumed everyone knew that women were used as clergy in the very early Christian Church. Why is this such an issue now?

I've read in a variety of sources that women were quite active in the early Christian Church. Thus it is possible that the painting describes there importance, not their priestliness. Of course modern feminism and political correctness demand that there would exist women priests at that time. One must be a bit careful about these excited stories.
Jefferson: I place economy among the first and important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our choice between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.
I can't explain the why for how it came to be otherwise, but, it's likely women led services originally as well as men. I Corinthians has some passages about doing specific stuff in service, it included prophesies and tongues, it had to be done no more than 3 together and females and males were mentioned.

Girls are called deacons in Romans.

If you know your ancient ANE history, you realize the passages modernists assume are against the female preacher are typical "the bible was written in 1950" thinkers. Some of these passages, we have to know the culture of the pagans to figure out what Paul was saying and since most of us don't, we take them at face value with no "keys" to unlock the understanding, so to speak.

Patriarchal thinking isn't easily overcome.
I don't know just where Colonel Anger, my professor, got all of his information on this, but he was a Dead Sea Scroll scholar. He read about this from some obscure book, which was really fascinating. We covered early Christianity as a bridge between ancient civ and medieval civ, because it carried Rome through the transition.

I wish I could remember the book, and who wrote it, but it was not a text book.

In Romans 16:7, the Apostle Paul refers to a woman as an apostle: "Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me." That name "Junia" is feminine according to Koiné Greek rules of grammar. Strong's Bible Dictionary says about this word: "Of Latin origin / Junia = 'youthful' / 1) a Christian woman at Rome, mentioned by Paul as one of his kinsfolk and fellow prisoners." Paul says Junia was "of note" among the apostles.

I have long been in favor of ordination of women. Women should be free to hold any office to which God calls them. To me, the overriding text on this subject is Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." Notice that this text is an objective, abstract theological formulation, thus it must override any other text where Paul was obviously addressing a local cultural situation, and thus must be taken in that context. For example where Paul says women should keep silence in church--the cultural context he was addressing was the situation in Jewish synagogues at that time, where women were separated from men by a lattice, and often women started in to conversing with each other to the point where it was distracting to the men, who were reading and discussing the Scriptures. It should also be noted that that separation of women from men in the synagogue was no where required by God in the writings of Moses. Biblical historians conclude that the practice was not seen until after the Babylonian captivity--so the custom must have been picked up during the time that the Jews were dispersed and living among pagans in Babylon and then Medo-Persia.
Judaism is considered one of the first Patriarchal religions. Most previous religions were based on an Earth Mother or fertility goddess. I guess Christianity just followed that idea - with the scientific principle added.

I agree with your take on "women should keep silent". The problem also may have been associated with female conduct in pagan temples. These were new converts being instructed, old habits, hard to break.
While it is true that women heavily populated the early Church, so much so that non-Christians considered Christianity a woman's religion initially, giving them a place in history as leaders of the church is PC bullshit to appease feminists and white people.


Women immediately ruin most things they manage/run/instruct and at the very least drive out the men. Look at public schools.

Except for in the case of the hardened and unemotional pragmatist, most women end up tyrannizing their positions and driving off/eliminating anyone who questions the imposed order, turn it into a social group for ego boosting, and immediately relax standards of conduct or belief. Not only that, but the irrational thinking comes short, it becomes a terrible church and no one, at least men, want to attend. Women eliminate anything they see as threatening to what benefits them. This cuts across all forms of social organization, religion and politics, and the work place -- it is a general pattern. It stagnates and just plain begins to suck.

Having had several female bosses, most are terrible to work under. I cannot imagine having a female clergy to help look after my soul. It would be like having a feminist fix your marriage I guess.

Matriarchal organizations fail or stagnate, and the Church didn't get as far as it did by being led by women in any major way. No, men were the main movers.

That all being said, without women as saints, followers, or protagonists/antagonists in the history the Church, it would have surely failed and so the West as we know it would have never existed.
I've left church over a male pastor( just because he wasn't teaching anything new). I'd leave one over a girl that thought her role was more or less than studying and teaching the scriptural text and associated info for clarity also. Would make no difference to me.

That's what their role is , anything more or less I'd be outta that one fast. Girl or guy, makes no difference.
Palladin, "girl" is often considered a pejorative term these days. Some women are mature ladies, and it is unfair to characterize them as mere "girls."

Pastors do more than study and preach. They also visit church members--especially those in need during times of affliction. They also usually serve as chairpersons at church board meetings, so they have to be equal to dealing with church politics. They have other duties as well, such as performing marriages, and conducting funerals. They are often called on to give counselling to couples preparing for marriage, as well as comforting the bereaved.

Here is something Ellen G. White said about women pastors (she is regarded as a prophetess as well as one of the founding members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church), in her book, Evangelism, page 472: "There are women who should labor in the Gospel Ministry. In many respects they would do more good than the ministers who neglect to visit the flock of God." You see how she emphasized the importance of ministers visiting their church members.
Quote:Women immediately ruin most things they manage/run/instruct and at the very least drive out the men. Look at public schools.

Ever wonder why properly such all-women collectives as harems still require a UNIX operating system?
Sodomia delenda est

Whether mean or women are better at management may be not the right question.

In most businesses where I've worked, there were always employees who would have made better bosses than the boss we had. I could identify both men and women in that broad statement. It seems to me, after watching this mummers' farce for so long, that crossing the line between worker and boss does not depend upon competence. The culture of management is sometimes not so much an "old boys' network" as it is a bosses club. A CEO who ruins one company will get hired to lead another company into ruin, simply because he was in the "club" and available when a spot opened up.

Since there are fewer women in that club, for them to cross the threshold and become bosses requires them to play a political game outside of just being competent. Those who are good at the political machinations seem to be the worst at running businesses. There are a few competent bosses out there, but far fewer women, based on pure percentage.
(11-22-2013, 08:48 PM)WmLambert Wrote: Whether mean or women are better at management may be not the right question.

What about mean women? S6
Sodomia delenda est


I can't waste time on a church that doesn't have a preacher that gives me more each time I attend. Seems to me we all ought to visit a person who was sick or suffering loss of loved ones, so yea, a preacher ought to do that, too.

Still, if they don't teach, they're not fulfilling their roles. It's all our role to visit friends in need.
A Deacon or elder of most churches perform that duty as well. Hospital visits are handled by more than the heads of the churches.
How about chimp priesthood? if this lawsuit succeeds, no barriers I can see. S6
Sodomia delenda est

As an elder in my church, I have been tasked with visiting church members, including those who were in hospitals. We have regular meetings attended by the pastor and the elders, and the church list is divided up, and names are assigned to each elder, so everyone gets visited.

Too often much of this visitation is left to the pastor, but that is not good. Churches that are too dependent upon a "hovering" pastor are never as healthy as churches that take more care of themselves, and allow the pastor to be more free for evanglism and Bible study. In Central and South America, where we SDAs average only one pastor per dozen churches, the elders take over much of the traditional pastoral responsibilities. These churches are the ones that have been growing most rapidly, many times the rate that the U.S. Church is growing.
Latter-Day Saints do not have professional clergy. The church members run their own wards and elect their leaders from the membership. Their Bishops run the churches but do so for a limited time - and then are replaced as their tenure ends.
They do have the office of prophet--it is an elected office.
The ones who come to my house tell me they have 12 Apostles. I assume elected, don't know.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)