Women are to be silent when the Church assembles!

[reba]

Webb the scriptures do not say have been the husband of one wife .

What a shame it it would be to cut off the wisdom of an elder because his wife passed away... That would be a real shame....The LETTER of the word says what it says. See i would not want churches to give up elders because of such but the scriptures say what they say...keeping to the LETTER of the Word.

See when it comes to widowers you want to do it your way. Maybe the guy here who knows Greek can shed some light on the wording...

 

[Webb]

Hi Reba: You wrote: "WHAT A SHAME IT WOULD BE TO CUT OFF THE WISDOM OF AN ELDER BECAUSE HIS WIFE PASSED AWAY---".

In the 1st place I'm not writing about man's wisdom but God's. We had better give what Paul wrote to the Corinthians about man's wisdom vs. God's wisdom. Now I can almost hear someone say "thats what Paul said to the Corinthians and that doesn't count", just as some are saying about the women speaking in the church.

In the 2nd place an elder whose wife passed away has had HOW MANY WIVES? As I count he has had but ONE, that is, if he met the qualifications for an elder in the first place. God through Paul made clear why He stipulates one wife and children being in "subjection with all gravity" --- "For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God? I Tim.3:5.

I fail often, but I will try to go by the word of God as close as possible. It DOES make a difference WHAT we believe and it DOES make a difference WHAT we do. We will be judged by the words of Christ, Jn.12:48, not mans think so's.

 

[reba]

What does the Word say?

1Ti 3:12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

Where does the verse say have been? I CHOOSE to read the verse the same as you do. I believe the spirit of the Word makes alive and the spirit says, to me, a widower is welcome to serve.

That same common sense thinking IMO should apply to all Scripture. There for i read Pauls comments to the church in Corinth to be mainly to that church.

 

[handy]

To Handy and all: All you need do is show from scripture where women who were prophets did so in the assembly. It can't be done! One major problem with denominalists is their refusal to stay with just what is read in the scripture, no wonder confusions abound and abound and abound. The subject of the head covering, while it does touch on the matter of this thread is really for another thread.

No, Webb, I disagree that all I need to do is show from scripture where women who were prophets did so in the assembly. Why should I have to do that... because you pick something that you know can't be done, and arbitarily make that the litmus test?

fuggeddaboutit.

Rather, what I've done and will continue to do is show that Paul's instruction that the women have symbols of authority on their heads when praying or prophesying is within the same context of the rest of the instructions that Paul was giving to the Corinthians on how to conduct themselves during their assemblies.

To deny that is to take Scriptures out of their context... breaking one of the most important rules of proper exegesis.

 

[Webb]

Reba: If you want to read "one wife" that way I have no real problem with that. It still doesn't grant liberty to those who insist on women speaking in the church. I knew a godly elder whose wife died. He decided to resign because he was no longer the husband of "one wife" because he then had no wife. I didn't agree with him but respected his conscience.

Handy: We both will be judged by Jesus' word on this and all matters. I know I am absolutely safe when I do but what His word reveals.

As for Corinth Paul said he taught the same to all churches everywhere. Not just at Corinth but everywhere. No one has been able to show otherwise.

 

[reba]

Reba: If you want to read "one wife" that way I have no real problem with that. It still doesn't grant liberty to those who insist on women speaking in the church. I knew a godly elder whose wife died. He decided to resign because he was no longer the husband of "one wife" because he then had no wife. I didn't agree with him but respected his conscience.

Very sad Webb

2Co 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

 

[Webb]

Should I be (present tense) the husband of "one wife" and my "one wife" should die I would still be the husband of "one wife", and when I show her picture to someone I would still refer to her as my wife. I havn't had anyother wife but her, past or present. Whats so difficult about that?

 

[Justice]

To Handy and all: All you need do is show from scripture where women who were prophets did so in the assembly. It can't be done! One major problem with denominalists is their refusal to stay with just what is read in the scripture, no wonder confusions abound and abound and abound. The subject of the head covering, while it does touch on the matter of this thread is really for another thread.

Luke 2:36–38
36: And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser: she was of a great age, and had lived with an husband seven years from her virginity;
37: And she was a widow of about fourscore and four years, which departed not from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day.
38: And she coming in that instant gave thanks likewise unto the Lord, and spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem.

Anna the prophetess never left the temple. She spake of him (being Jesus) to ALL.

 

[handy]

Luke 2:36–38
36: And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser: she was of a great age, and had lived with an husband seven years from her virginity;
37: And she was a widow of about fourscore and four years, which departed not from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day.
38: And she coming in that instant gave thanks likewise unto the Lord, and spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem.

Anna the prophetess never left the temple. She spake of him (being Jesus) to ALL.

Nice one Justice, but just wait, it won't be accepted as meeting the criteria.

 

[Webb]

Of course it doesn't meet the criteria if we mean "criteria" to the NT. Anna and the temple were under the OT law. We are under the new covenant of Jesus Christ are we not? Or do you try to be under the law and are therefore fallen from grace, Gal.5:4. The church of the NT was not yet in existence during the old covenant. Which covenant or testament are YOU under?

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

Mar 6:7 And he called unto him the twelve, and began to send them forth by two and two; and gave them power over unclean spirits;
Mar 6:8 And commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse:
Mar 6:9 But be shod with sandals; and not put on two coats.


We can see who this was written about the twelve.... yet we also know we are to spread the Gospel... Does verse 9 mean one MUST wear sandals to spread the gospel? No because we see the spirit of what was written...

Reebs, what do you base the conclusions drawn above on that carry any more weight than personal feelings?
How is it that people today can KNOW that they are to spread the gospel? Please specify how we can know that based on the above quoted passage. In addition, how can we extrapolate these texts and give them a post apostolic relevance (as it relates to Jesus' mandate)?
Does the "spirit" allow for them to carry money if they choose? Does the "spirit" allow for them to be unshod or without sandals? If so why the difference?

 

[handy]

Of course it doesn't meet the criteria if we mean "criteria" to the NT. Anna and the temple were under the OT law. We are under the new covenant of Jesus Christ are we not? Or do you try to be under the law and are therefore fallen from grace, Gal.5:4. The church of the NT was not yet in existence during the old covenant. Which covenant or testament are YOU under?

The New...

And I still say you've set up a wholly arbitrary set of criteria here, Webb.

It would be like me demanding that anyone who believes that baptism should be by immersion only to show in the Scriptures anyone being fully immersed in water. That isn't in there either. Matthew states that Jesus went "up from the water" but that could mean nothing more than He climbed up out of the river. The water may have been only knee deep. It certainly doesn't say that Jesus was fully immersed during baptism, nor anyone else for that matter.


Here's a challenge for you that is a little more in keeping with proper exegesis... show me that 1 Corinthians 11 isn't talking about proper conduct in the assemblies. Or that somehow, when Paul states, "But in giving this instruction, I do not praise you, because you come together not for the better but for the worse" he isn't referring to the women covering their heads while prophesying and praying when they "come together".

 

[reba]

Reebs, what do you base the conclusions drawn above on that carry any more weight than personal feelings?
How is it that people today can KNOW that they are to spread the gospel? Please specify how we can know that based on the above quoted passage. In addition, how can we extrapolate these texts and give them a post apostolic relevance (as it relates to Jesus' mandate)?
Does the "spirit" allow for them to carry money if they choose? Does the "spirit" allow for them to be unshod or without sandals? If so why the difference?

ToT ask once again i bit differently i am trying to grasp your question. reebs

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

My apologies Reba (Reebs). I reread what I posted and it was a bit unclear. The jist (gist ?) of what I am asking is how is it that we can or anyone can say that the 12 Jesus sent out could go out without being shod as he commanded? Was that command somehow less of a command than the one to carry no money and if it was, how can we be sure it was?

 

[Webb]

Handy, 1st on baptism: Consider the baptism of Jesus in Matt.4 and the baptism of the eunuch in Acts 8. Jesus "went up straightway out of the water". Have you ever seen anyone sprinkled or poured for baptism come "up straightway out of the water"? I doubt it, for this on only necessary when we consider baptism as a burial.
The eunuch "went down into the water" and when baptized "came up out of the water''. This is not done with sprinkling and pouring, only immersion. Or again, what about the 2 times when Paul just comes right out and says we are "buried" with Him in baptism? The Greek language will not even allow for sprinking. Again such reasoning for a "baptism" that is NOT a "baptism" can only be the result of lightly handling the word of God.

As for a proper exegesis of I Cor.11, yes, of course the Corinthians has problems in their assembly. In that chapter two problems were addressed. Paul's statement in I Cor.11:17, I believe, is related to the 2nd problems he addresses, the Lord's supper. In vs. 17 he writes: ''Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse." There has been a change of subjects. Note the words "when ye come together". In vs. 20 he writes: "When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper." Same phrase here as in vs. 17. This, I believe to be the proper exegesis.

I have shown from I Cor.1:2 that the letter is addressed as well to "all everywhere". I have shown that Paul said he taught the same thing everywhere to all the churches. He said that not once but twice. In addition, he says the same thing to Timothy as he did to the Corinthians regarding the role of women in the church. Timothy was written later than Corinthians, thus Paul (or inspiration) had not had a mind change. Timothy understood that for he was to preach "in season and out of season" and teaching is doctrine and doctrine is teaching and Paul told Timothy to continue in the doctrine for in so doing he would save not only his own soul but those who heard him. The role of the woman in the church by necessitiy is part and parsel.

Until someone can show Paul did not teach the same thing "everywhere" and in "ALL the churches" I grow weary of this thread and probably will retire from it.

 

[handy]

The eunuch "went down into the water" and when baptized "came up out of the water''. This is not done with sprinkling and pouring, only immersion. Or again, what about the 2 times when Paul just comes right out and says we are "buried" with Him in baptism? The Greek language will not even allow for sprinking.

Correct! The very language of the Scriptures overwhelmingly lend its support for baptism by immersion.

Just as the very language of the Scriptures overwhelmingly lend its support for the fact that the gift of prophesy is a gift for the edification of the church, to be used within the assemblies. That it may very well have been exercised outside of the assemblies is possible. That its usage within the assemblies is at the heart of the context of this passage by Paul. He starts the whole set of instructions to the church at Corinth with an instruction regarding prophesy.

Forgive me, but I think your determination that 11:17 represents a change of subject is incorrect.

I'm sure we are all of an agreement that the Chapters and verses of the bible are for reference and were not part of the original texts. So, I do believe that the first statement of the Chapter "Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ" fits better as a wrap up of Paul's words regarding things sacrificed to idols.

Then in verse 2, he transitions saying, "Now i praise you because you remember me in everything, and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them up to you." What are the "traditions" Paul speaks of here?

Greek word, "paradosis" meaning: "of the body of precepts, esp. ritual, which in the opinion of the later Jews were orally delivered by Moses and orally transmitted in unbroken succession to subsequent generations, which precepts, both illustrating and expanding the written law, as they did were to be obeyed with equal reverence"... (Strong's via Blue Letter Bible)

The body of precepts, especially ritual. Given the context of the next 4 Chapters, most scholars understandably recognize the "paradosis" as the rituals that were to be observed during the assemblies.

Let me do a little exercise here that will help illuminate this context:

"Now I praise you because you remember me in everything, and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you. (Insert instruction here) But in giving this instruction, I do not praise you, because you come together not for the better, but for the worse."

The one instruction isn't completely out of place... it's not something that Paul says... "Oh, let me get back to that, but before I forget I need to mention..." No. The instruction is clearly a part of what Paul is addressing, and what he is addressing is how the Corinthians were holding firmly to the traditions he delivered to them. That they were doing so... yes. But, that they were being rather chaotic and undisciplined about it all, that's what he's addressing and he continues to address the issues for the next 4 Chapters.

As for 1 Timothy 2, this issue here again is the need for women to operate under authority. In 1 Corinthians, the issue of authority addressed by the need for women, when praying or prophesying to have a symbol of authority upon her head. If not sharing a prayer or prophesy, then the women should be quiet, holding their peace, not be disruptive. In 1 Timothy, where the context is clearly church leadership and church authority, Paul states that a woman should quietly, submissively recieve instruction...not being teachers or holding authority. Now, the "quietly" here is a different word than what we find in 1 Corinthians, as Paul is addressing a different subject. In 1 Corinthians the word translated as silence means "to hold one's peace". In 1 Timothy, the word translated (in the KJV) as "silence" is "hesychia" and is defined:
1) quietness
a) description of the life of one who stays at home doing his own work, and does not officiously meddle with the affairs of others


In all cases, I believe that the message for women, not just of the first century, but even for us women now, is that we are to not usurp the authority of the men, but rather use the gifts that God gives us to edify the men and help them in the ministry of the church. No one should argue that God clearly gifts women for ministry, including the gift of prophesy which requires speaking to the assembly.

 

[Codger]

[FONT=Comic Sans MS, cursive]The text used is as follows...[/FONT]

[FONT=Comic Sans MS, cursive]1Cor. 14:34-38 (KJV) [/FONT]

[FONT=Comic Sans MS, cursive][34]…Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. [35] And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. [36] What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? [37] If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. [38] But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant. [/FONT]

[FONT=Comic Sans MS, cursive]The negative attitude toward Christian women comes from two hard to understand passages from St. Paul. After reading on the subject I think that in both cases he was addressing local errors in the Church and was not making a general statement for all time. [/FONT]

[FONT=Comic Sans MS, cursive]The one thing that has to be considered is the writings of St. Paul are often answers to problems or questions that he has been presented with either by letter or by a visitor from that Church. So we are only hearing one side of a conversation. So when he is answering a question we have to deduce from his answer what the question was. Most letters were lost to history. And so that is what we have to do with this passage. [/FONT]

[FONT=Comic Sans MS, cursive]1 Corinthians 14:36-38 is his response to an important situation, which was detrimental to the Corinthian Church. So what problem is he addressing in our text? What is he reacting to?[/FONT]

[FONT=Comic Sans MS, cursive]After writing on boards like this for 20 years it is interesting how many times that this issue of women keeps coming up again and again; and of course the problem that spiritually savvy Christians have is the manifested spirit of St. Paul and his kindness and respect for women is in direct conflict with this stated text. And so we struggle with our apologetics in order to reconcile the two. Of course there are those who are more legalistic and are dogmatic about this problematic text – they have no problem. [/FONT]

[FONT=Comic Sans MS, cursive]It is unfortunate that the Koine Greek does not use quotation marks. If it did I don't think a lot of us would be struggling with this passage like we do. For the sake of this post allow me to add quotation marks to the appropriate text of this passage.[/FONT]

[FONT=Comic Sans MS, cursive]1Corinthians 14:34-37 (KJV) [34] ...“Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.” [35]“And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.”[/FONT]

[FONT=Comic Sans MS, cursive]In 34 & 35 St. Paul is quoting the words of someone in the Church probably a "Judiazer,"someone from the Circumcision Party, who opposed Paul at every turn - who in judging from the text - considered himself a prophet in that local body.[/FONT]

[FONT=Comic Sans MS, cursive]Moreover I Corinthians 14:34,35, if taken totally literally, cannot refer to the Old Testament Scriptures when speaking of the Law for there is not one trace from Genesis to Malachi of any such prohibition of women to literally keep silent in the church nor is there a single word in the whole "law of Moses" dealing with the subject. Therefore the words, "it is not permitted"and "as also saith the Law" must refer to some rule outside of Scripture. There was no other but the Oral Law of the Jews appealed to by the Judaizers in the church in their efforts at that time to bring Christianity back within the confines of Judaism. [/FONT]

[FONT=Comic Sans MS, cursive]The Jewish Oral Law did teach the silencing of women. The Talmud also taught that it was "a shame for a woman to let her voice beheard among men". However, the Oral Law of the Jews is not Scripture. Again, the reference to the "law" is, of itself sufficient to show that the Apostle who labored so earnestly to free the Christian Church from the very shadow of Judaism was not expressing his own conviction in the language attributed to him. Paul never appealed to the "law" for the guidance of the Church of Christ, but, on the contrary, declared that believers were dead to the law by the body of Christ" (Romans 7:4) that they might serve in newness of spirit and not the oldness of the letter (v.6).)[/FONT]

[FONT=Comic Sans MS, cursive]Now lets look at St. Paul's response to this quotation. I have used the old KJV because it uses the word “What” in its translation as do several other versions. This should be read in an angry tone of voice.[/FONT]

[FONT=Comic Sans MS, cursive][36]What?came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?[37] If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. [/FONT]

“[FONT=Comic Sans MS, cursive]What”is an expression of outrage at the preceding quote. He follows with a denouncement of the comments of the Judiazer. He didn't dwell on the problem probably because he only wanted to correct the situation and not to destroy or run off the individual.[/FONT]

[FONT=Comic Sans MS, cursive]So in summary the text was not composed by St. Paul, but was only quoted by him in making a correction to the quotation. Actually, the exact opposite of the text was intended in this passage of Scripture.[/FONT]

 

[handy]

That's really interesting Jasher. The point about the "law" came up once before...and I have to admit, as often as I've delved into this study, I've never really pursued that line...but you (and the other poster) are absolutely correct...nowhere in the OT law is there a prohibition of women speaking in the assemblies.

Or, if there is...I'd like to see it.

 

[Codger]

I really hate this topic. I do! But, I'll give my opinion so it can be bounced around and such.

There is no doubt that women played a big role in the Bible. At times, even keeping the man of God straight. I can give examples but let me skip them to get to my point.

Women aren't meant to be preachers. That's the bottom line. They can't be Apostles.... Those sent to lead a Church. God said it, not me. And Apostle is one sent by God, and he ain't ever sent a woman to be an Apostle. He never sent one to preach either.

He sent plenty of women to read letters to Churches from Apostles and preachers. He even had some be judges, teachers and helps. But they aren't to be in leadership.

All of what Paul talked about when he discussed the roll of a husband and wife was about the Church. Jesus is the Husband, and we, the Church are the wife. We do what he wants, not the other way around!

I honestly can't say they aren't talented enough. But that is the way it is.

I disagree.

Here is a list taken from the internet over the years of of the common male attitude toward women over the millennia. It's sad to say that a lot of these came from the so called "Church fathers."

"Whoever teaches his daughter the Torah is
like one who teaches her obscenity. Rather
should the words of the Torah be burned than
entrusted to a woman."
Ancient Rabbi

"It is a shame for a woman to let her voice be heard
among men." Ancient Rabbi

"The woman is in all things inferior to the man.
Let her be accordingly submissive."
Josephus - Historian

"All females, both animal and human, are inferior
to males. We should look upon the female as a
deformity in nature." Aristotle - Philosopher

"Woman is defective and misbegotten. For
the active power in the male seed produces
a perfect male likeness. A female comes from a
defect in the male seed or from some indisposition
such as the south wind being too moist."
Thomas Aquinas - Church father

"God's sentence hangs over the female sex,
and His punishment weighs down upon you.
You are the devil's gateway. You first violated
the forbidden tree and broke God's law. You
shattered God's image in man, and because
you merited death, you had to die."
Tertullian - Church Father

"It brings man shame even to reflect on
woman's nature. By no means shall
women exhibit any part of their person
lest men become excited and look and fall."
Clement - Church Father

"It is part of her punishment and a part
from which even God's mercy will
not exempt her. Subjection to the will of her
husband is part of her curse."
Clement - Church Father

"Take women from their housewifery and they
are good for nothing."
Martin Luther

"Women have narrow shoulders and broad hips
to sit upon, so they ought to stay home,
keep the house, bear and raise children. The
woman differs from the man; she is weaker in
body, in honor, in intellect and in dignity."
Martin Luther

"If a woman take upon her any office which
God assigned to man, she shall not escape being
cursed. Women are weak, they are frail, they are
impatient and feeble and foolish. They are
inconstant. They are changeable, they are cruel.
They lack spirit and counsel. Woman in her
greatest perfection was made to serve and
only obey men."
John Knox

"One hundred women are not worth a single
testicle." Confucius (551-479 BCE)

"The five worst infirmities that afflict the female are
indocility, discontent, slander, jealousy, and silliness...
Such is the stupidity of woman's character, that it is
incumbent upon her, in every particular, to distrust
herself and to obey her husband."
The Confucian Marriage Manual

"A proper wife should be as obedient as a slave."
and "The female is a female by virtue of a certain
lack of qualities - a natural defectiveness."
Aristotle (384-322 BCE)

"In childhood a woman must be subject to her father;
in youth to her husband; when her husband is dead,
to her sons. A woman must never be free of subjugation."
The Hindu Code of Manu (c. 100 CE)

"Among all savage beasts, none is found so harmful as woman."
St. John Chrysostom (345-407 CE)

"Men are superior to women."
The Koran (c. 650)

"Any woman who acts in such a way that she cannot
give birth to as many children as she is capable of,
makes herself guilty of that many murders."
St. Augustine (354-430 CE)

"Do you know that each of your women is an Eve?
The sentence of God - on this sex of yours - lives
in this age; the guilt must necessarily live, too. You
are the gate of Hell, you are the temptress of the
forbidden tree; you are the first deserter of the
divine law."
Tertullian in 22 CE

"Woman in her greatest perfection was made to
serve and obey man, not rule and command him."
John Knox (1505-1572)

"The souls of women are so small that some
believe they've none at all."
Samuel Butler (1612-1680)

"What a misfortune to be a woman! And yet,
the worst misfortune is not to understand
what a misfortune it is".
Kierkegaard (1813-1855)

"It seems to me that nearly every woman I know
wants a man who knows how to love with authority.
Women are simple souls who like simple things, and
one of the simplest is one of the simplest to give...
Our family Airedale will come clear across the yard
for one pat on the head. The average wife is like that.
She will come across town, across the house, across
to your point of view, and across almost anything to
give you her love if you offer her yours with some
honest approval."
Episcopal Bishop James Pike in a letter to his son (1968)

"Let us set our women folk on the road to goodness
by teaching them to display submissiveness." "Every
woman should be overwhelmed with shame at the
thought that she is a woman."
St. Clement of Alexandria in 96 CE

In the year 584 CE, in Lyons, France, forty-three
Catholic bishops and twenty men representing other
bishops, held a most peculiar debate: "Are Women
Human?" After many lengthy arguments, a vote was
taken. The results were: thirty-two, yes; thirty-one,
no. Women were declared human by one vote!
Council of Macon

"Blessed art thou, O Lord our God and King of the
Universe, that thou didst not create me a woman."
Daily prayer, still in use, of the orthodox Jewish male

"Woman should remain at home, sit still, keep house,
and bear and bring up children." and "If a woman grows
weary and, at last, dies from child bearing, it matters not.
Let her die from bearing; she is there to do it."
Martin Luther (1483-1546)

With this kind of really negative attitude among the male population over the Millennia Is it really difficult to believe that the historical record of women's participation in the leadership of the Church has mostly been expunged by the "Selective memory," of the male scribes of that day. Jesus and Paul lived in a culture of male domination. This practice followed into the Church after Pentecost although some women were leaders in the synagogues in that day. A lot of Christian women were poor, but some were also wealthy: like Lydia. Women were managing their own households, which often had a lot going on like maintenance of property, running a business, managing a family along with its many responsibilities and supervision of slaves in some cases. The early Church was basically run by women as they simply extended their homes in order to host the Church, which met in homes during the first and second centuries.

During the third and forth centuries as the church slowly became institutionalized, the women were displaced and the leadership became masculine dominated. This is also the mentality who eradicated almost all traces of women in leadership from the written records. There were women in leadership before the purge took place. The best example extant is Junia mentioned by St. Paul as an Apostle. Translators “Corrected” the female name to that of Junias - the male form. There is no historical male name “Junias.“ The evidence of early Female leadership remains mostly in the fraises, mosaics, and grave markings in places like the catacombs.

Another example: There is a mosaic in a Basilica that depicts four women, Mary the mother of Jesus, Prudentiana, Praxedis, and a forth woman whose name was Theodora Episcopa - Bishop Theodora. Episcopus is the male form and episcopa is the female. It is also noteworthy that the ending letter of the word episcopa in the mosaic was partially defaced - I wonder why? As a side note, the image of Theodora had a square halo instead of a round one like the other three women, which symbolically indicated that she was still alive when the mosaic was made.

This spirit still remains alive today but somewhat muted from the time of the quotes. Who is it that benefits when half of the body of Christ (women) is suppressed?

 

[reba]

My apologies Reba (Reebs). I reread what I posted and it was a bit unclear. The jist (gist ?) of what I am asking is how is it that we can or anyone can say that the 12 Jesus sent out could go out without being shod as he commanded? Was that command somehow less of a command than the one to carry no money and if it was, how can we be sure it was?

I take that "put your shoes on" as a statement that they were in for along walk....

Yes i Knowt it is some contradictory to how i was using it....