Opinion

Jesus and the ordination of women

Bishops are seen in attendance as Pope Francis leads the Mass for a canonization in St. Peter's Square at the Vatican on Oct. 18, 2015. Photo courtesy of Reuters/Alessandro Bianchi

(RNS) One of the Catholic Church’s traditional arguments against the priestly ordination of women revolves around Jesus of Nazareth being a man.

According to this “official” line of reasoning, the priest must be “another Christ,” a male other Christ. Such an individual must have a “natural resemblance” to the first Christ. By definition, a female can’t fill that role.

The authors of the Christian Scriptures would never have understood that logic.

In the 40-year period between Jesus’ earthly ministry and the writing of the first gospel (Mark), his apostles certainly passed on many of the words and actions of the carpenter who lived between 6 BCE and 30 CE: the “historical Jesus.”

But while they did so, they also were convinced this particular itinerant preacher had risen into a “new creation.” (II Corinthians 5:17)

The person who rose from the tomb into a new creation on Easter Sunday was just as much a slave as a free person, a Gentile as a Jew and a woman as a man (Galatians 3:28). Jesus, now risen, could not be considered a first-century Jewish man.

Many of us make the mistake of confusing biblical resurrection with resuscitation. In the Gospel of Luke, Jairus’ daughter, the widow of Nain’s son and Jesus’ friend Lazarus didn’t “rise” from the dead. Jesus simply resuscitated them.

Though I presume at one point they were clinically dead when they came back to life, they were still the same persons they were before they stopped breathing. If the widow’s son, for instance, enjoyed ball games before he died, he continued to like them when he returned home alive from his funeral procession. More importantly, all three died again. They’re no longer around today.

In Scripture, only Jesus of Nazareth rises from the dead. That unique person — not a resuscitated Jesus — is front and center to both the first preachers and those who composed the Christian Scriptures; it is this risen Jesus, not a “returned” historical Jesus, that they preach and eventually write about. They understand that if Jesus is now alive and present to the community of believers, what he is doing right here and now is the critical issue requiring attention.

That’s why, among other things, both mid-first-century preachers and the evangelists don’t hesitate to change the Aramaic the historical Jesus spoke into the koine Greek which the risen Jesus speaks in their sermons and writings. They do this for the sake of their Greek speaking audiences, a group the historical Jesus never encountered.

Neither do the preachers or evangelists have any scruples adding to or changing the historical Jesus’ words. A classic example: his teaching on divorce. Matthew’s Jesus – in Chapter 19 — says only that a man may not divorce his wife. Women are off the hook! But Mark’s Jesus — in Chapter 10 — insists neither men nor women can divorce their spouses. What did the historical Jesus actually command? Given the early church’s belief in the risen Jesus, the answer is simple. Matthew’s Jesus — like the historical Jesus — addresses a Jewish-Christian audience that knows nothing about a wife divorcing her husband. Mark, on the other hand, writes for a Gentile-Christian community in which women have the right to divorce their husbands. The historical Jesus said one thing; the risen Jesus says something else. Like any living person, the risen Jesus constantly modifies his message to meet the needs of new times and new audiences.

Perhaps one of the most insightful biblical passages revolving around the risen Jesus is in Acts 9, the narrative of Paul’s conversion. This zealous disciple of the Mosaic law is on the road to Damascus, bent on bringing back to Jerusalem “in chains” those Jews who “belonged to the Way,” when he’s knocked to the ground by someone claiming to be “Jesus whom you are persecuting.” Much to Saul’s surprise, this confrontative risen Jesus identifies with all his followers. This is significant, since the author just told us Saul was going to “arrest any men and women” who followed that Way. According to Luke’s theology, not only were the Christian men in Damascus other Christs, so were the women!

Reflecting on Galatians 3, spiritual author Michael Crosby once mentioned it took 30 or 40 years before the church overcame the Jew/Gentile issue, and almost 1,900 years before it finally settled the slave/free question. Then he pointed out the obvious: “We’re still dealing with that male/female thing!” Just as the church once struggled to surface the risen Jesus in Gentiles and slaves, it continues to struggle with experiencing that same unique person in women, especially in women who have a calling to preside at the Eucharist.

Perhaps during this Easter season, as we contemplate the historical Jesus’ transformation into the risen Jesus, it might be helpful for us Christians to deliberately go back to our biblical roots. After all, we can best show our faith in Jesus’ resurrection by simply looking around and experiencing him/her in the person next to us — especially these days if that person is a woman.

(The Rev. Roger Vermalen Karban, a Catholic priest in the Diocese of Belleville, Ill., is a Scripture scholar and widely published writer)

About the author

Roger Vermalen Karban

319 Comments

Click here to post a comment

  • “The person who rose from the tomb into a new creation on Easter Sunday was just as much a slave as a free person, a Gentile as a Jew and a woman as a man (Galatians 3:28). Jesus, now risen, could not be considered a first-century Jewish man.”
    The person who rose from the tomb was a man and He had no need for salvation. Galatians 3:28 is in reference to salvation, not identity.
    Galatians 3:28English Standard Version (ESV)
    28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave[a] nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

  • ” According to Luke’s theology, not only were the Christian men in Damascus other Christs, so were the women!” False. There is only one Christ.
    John 17:3 — And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

  • As far as ordinating women:
    Genesis 2:18 – English Standard Version
    Then the LORD God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.”

  • I asked a Catholic chaplain I know about this article and all he said to me was was this:

    “A creative reading of the Scripture to be sure, not very accurate, but very creative.”

  • “Matthew’s Jesus — like the historical Jesus — addresses a Jewish-Christian audience that knows nothing about a wife divorcing her husband.” Not entirely true, actually. Matthew tells us that John the Baptist condemned Herod Antipas for purporting to marry his brother’s wife, Herodias, who we know from Josephus had unilaterally divorced her husband Philip. Such a “divorce” was not recognized by Jewish law hence the Baptist’s charge of adultery that cost him his head.

  • Very wandering article. While the Roman Catholic Church made the argument that the priest had to appear male in Inter Insigniores, it then dropped that argument in later defenses against women priests, Mulieris Dignitatem and Ordinatio Sacerdotalis — so not a current argument. Pope Francis has pointed to the latter two documents by JPII, but as far as I know, Francis has not repeated the main argument in them which is, “The twelve apostles were male.” Both men and women are members of the Christ obviously, so Inter Insigniores was in error

  • This article repeats a common and baseless platitude — some Gospel books written
    for Gentiles, another for Jews? Nonsense. I assume Paul’s group wrote all the books of the Gospel and wrote them for Gentiles. Paul says it is “my Gospel” and “our Gospel.” None of it was written for Jews because they knew and still know that Yahweh abhors human sacrifice, and Yahweh would never have accepted Jesus- the-human-sacrifice. The authors of NT scriptures knew what other Jews knew and would not have written what was basically a modified Pagan theme (dying and rising young Lord) to their fellow Jews, who would just automatically reject it, and did. So the Gospel and the “Letter to the Hebrews” were marketed to Gentiles (Pagans).

  • This is a very slippery argument, with a great deal of nuance and subjectivity that I have not heard before. I will have to think on it.

  • Cannot speak for Romans, however I can for other Christians. I am an Episcopalian and our priest is a women. She is a third generation priest. Her grandfather was a priest, her father was both a priest and a bishop, and she is kind ,intelligent, totally committed to her ministry, day and night. She has two sons and is a loving grandmother. Never is her door closed to anyone, never has she been in any “trouble” and our church is a success by anyone’s standards. I truly believe that Jesus would have accepted her into his small group of men and women who where committed to him, not to the “standards” of the world.

  • But Paul made these decisions and pronouncements post-Jesus, claiming inspiration and approval. Often Paul’s viewpoints are different from what Jesus said and did.

  • As a Piskie, you do not have priests. As a Piskie you do not have a church because you do not have Apostolic Succession, Holy Orders, or the Eucharist.

    As to your claim that you know what Jesus would do, you obviously down;t for you oppose what He did, you oppose the Church He established and you oppose His Sacraments and Commandments.

  • Fr. Karban is a heretic who denies at least one miracle of Jesus:

    many of us make the mistake of confusing biblical resurrection with resuscitation. In the Gospel of Luke, Jairus’ daughter, the widow of Nain’s son and Jesus’ friend Lazarus didn’t “rise” from the dead. Jesus simply resuscitated them.

    Fr. tries to be a real up-to-date person and so he uses BCE and CE and claims Mark wrote first when it was Matthew who wrote in Hebrew.

    This act was lame and tired in the 1970s…give it up

  • Paul was dead long before the first Gospel (Mark) was written down. I assume all modern scripture scholars would agree with that. The “gospel” Paul is referring to is the Good News that Jesus preached not something that was already written down.

  • Are you saying that Jesus’ resuscitation of Jairus’ daughter was not a miracle? I didn’t read where Fr Karban said that resuscitation was not miracle.

  • “According to this “official” line of reasoning, the priest must be
    “another Christ,” a male other Christ. Such an individual must have a
    “natural resemblance” to the first Christ. By definition, a female can’t
    fill that role.”

    The whole idea is preposterous, that male genitilia has ANYTHING to do with one’s calling and gifts for spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ and nourishing the souls of believers with full inclusion and Communion! When Christ rose from the dead, he first appeared to a WOMAN! St. Paul, the first Christian missionary, declared to us in the epistles, “there is no longer Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, MALE NOR FEMALE!”

    Maintaining such an archaic notion permits those impotent old men in dresses to continue dominating women and denying them their equal right to be priests, pastors, missionaries and lay persons sharing God’s rich gifts and blessings with all of humanity!

  • The patriarchal phase of salvation history is passing away. The fallogocentric priesthood of the Old Law is a cultural aberration superseded by the sacramental priesthood of the New Law, and is an obstacle to integral human development and the mission of the Church. For your consideration and prayers:

    Religious Patriarchy is an Obstacle to Integral Human Development
    http://pelicanweb.org/CCC.TOB.1703.html

    In Christ,
    Luis

  • So, you believe that NO church other than Roman Catholic, is a church? Catholic over 60 years, all my life, Catholic school, etc. I was not taught this, even pre Vatican II. However, you have every right to your belief. Why the need to call names, “Piskie”? I guess that’s okay because you cannot accept that the Episcopalian faith is real.

  • I did not read that either. Of course, these were miracles. But they are not the same thing as the Resurrection of Jesus.

  • Sabe, It’s not just the Catholic Church that says this. People on these very pages say this, protestants say this. Orthodox Jews and orthodox Christians say this.

  • Yet another Christian claiming that other Christians are not true Christians. Your contempt is obvious.

  • Scholars are pretty sure that the gospels appeared after the letters of Paul, not before.

  • There were women deacons in the first house churches and first churches. My bible lists “Prisca” and “Aquila”. Does yours? The early Christians became more patriarchal in pushing women out of the leadership positions they held because they had to fit into a pagan religious environment. In truth the early Christian churches would never have survived except for wealthy widows who loved the fellowship and mutuality of the church. It was a form of socialism. Deny that all you want but that’s the truth.

  • I always say we should call the religion “Paulianity” because Paul made it in his own image. He never met Jesus and was not one of the original disciples.

  • there are no miracles. The only ‘miracle’ is that people still, in diminishing numbers, keep arguing this stuff.

  • Christianity is not phallogocentric. There is not an ounce of phallogocentrism in Jesus Christ. Some religious institutions, including some Christian churches, are phallogocentric. Let us pray that all Christian churches let go of the patriarchal scaffolding that obscures the glory of God made flesh.

  • He falsely claimed that what occurred was resuscitation which means only apparently dead.

    The person who rose from the tomb into a new creation on Easter Sunday was just as much a slave as a free person..

    This is a blistering blasphemy. Jesus rose triumphant and He is King, not a slave. The plain and simple truth is this author is a heretic who, in these sad times, is considered by his defenders as a Christian.

  • Well, we really wouldn’t want the people who have spent their lives studying the Bible to actually know anything, would we?

    In fact, of course, IT’s is apparent in the letters of Paul. He knew nothing about the virgin birth, the choirs of angels, or any of it. That’s scholars have been able to date the gospels to be post-70AD must just be a liberal bias.

  • There are many fallacy’s in this article concerning catholic beliefs and the authors beliefs. But just to put things is a biblical perspective I’ll directly quote and let scripture speak for itself.

    1 Timothy 2:12
    I permit not a woman to teach, neither to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

    1 Corinthians 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the Churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak: but they ought to be subject, as also the Law saith.
    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.

    1 Corinthians 11:3
    But I will that ye know, that Christ is the head of every man: and the man is the woman’s head: and God is Christ’s head.

    1 Corinthians 11:7
    For a man ought not to cover his head: forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

    1 Timothy 3
    1 This is a true saying, If any man desire the office of a Bishop, he desireth a worthy work.
    2 A Bishop therefore must be unreproveable, the husband of one wife, watching, temperate, modest, harborous, apt to teach,
    3 Not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre, but gentle, no fighter, not covetous.
    4 One that can rule his own house honestly, having children under obedience with all honesty.
    5 For if any cannot rule his own house, how shall he care for the Church of God?
    6 He may not be a young scholar, lest he being puffed up fall into the condemnation of the devil.
    7 He must also be well reported of, even of them which are without, lest he fall into rebuke, and the snare of the devil.

    No “interpretation” necessary.

  • Again, you’ll just have to take that up with the other Christians that are not a True Christian like you are.

    Personally, I just find your theological disputes over that issue to be silly. Your lack of respect for each other is only exceeded by your disrespect for everyone else.

    May you have to joy of it.

  • 1 Timothy 2:12
    I permit not a woman to teach, neither to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

    1 Corinthians 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the Churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak: but they ought to be subject, as also the Law saith.
    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.

    1 Corinthians 11:3
    But I will that ye know, that Christ is the head of every man: and the man is the woman’s head: and God is Christ’s head.

    1 Corinthians 11:7
    For a man ought not to cover his head: forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

    1 Timothy 3
    1 This is a true saying, If any man desire the office of a Bishop, he desireth a worthy work.
    2 A Bishop therefore must be unreproveable, the husband of one wife, watching, temperate, modest, harborous, apt to teach,
    3 Not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre, but gentle, no fighter, not covetous.
    4 One that can rule his own house honestly, having children under obedience with all honesty.
    5 For if any cannot rule his own house, how shall he care for the Church of God?
    6 He may not be a young scholar, lest he being puffed up fall into the condemnation of the devil.
    7 He must also be well reported of, even of them which are without, lest he fall into rebuke, and the snare of the devil.
    8 Likewise must Deacons be grave, not double tongued, not given unto much wine, neither to filthy lucre,
    9 Having the mystery of the faith in pure conscience.
    10 And let them first be proved, then let them minister, if they be found blameless.
    11 Likewise their wives must be honest, not evil speakers, but sober, and faithful in all things.
    12 Let the Deacons be the husbands of one wife, and such as can rule their children well, and their own households.
    13 For they that have ministered well, get themselves a good decree, and great liberty in the faith, which is in Christ Jesus.

    Remember the total of the bible God’s word not Paul’s word

    2 Timothy 3:16-17
    16 For the whole Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable to teach, to convince, to correct, and to instruct in righteousness,
    17 That the man of God may be absolute, being made perfect unto all good works.

  • Yes there were, are and will be scripture deniers such as those like you that claim the bible really doesn’t mean what it say’s. See in Genesis where the serpent beguiled Eve that God didn’t mean what He said.

  • Again, you’ll have to take that. Up with the biblical scholars, not with me. But you do exemplify the trumpian mindset.

    Those damned intellectual elites…Always knowin’ stuff, and having the audacity to tell you what they know, based upon their lifetimes of study.

    Martin Luther had a lot to say about the evils of ‘reason’ and facts. Here is just one quote:

    “Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and … know nothing but the word of God.”

    Hello, Mr. Luther.

  • Who said I despised anyone but you? Please name one biblical Christian I said I despised or is it I as right about you and your being unfamiliar with the bible.

  • Then please stop quoting those that can’t be questioned. It seems to be a bad habit of your claiming people said things that agree with your perspective and yet you keep making claims that just can’t be proven.

  • BTW I don’t need scholars opinions on God’s word knowing God is more than capable of preserving His word in it’s totality. How about you?

  • Once again, Christians blaming the “Old Law” for sexism. Again, it ends up being the Jews’s fault.

  • I am not blaming anyone. It is a systemic cultural issue that affects all the major religious traditions since time immemorial. People in patriarchal Israel didn’t know any better. Christians didn’t know any better until rather recently. Many Christian churches still refuse to have women in roles of *real* religious authority/responsibility. The problem is those who still refuse to face reality and persist in sexist attitudes that do much harm to all religious traditions.

  • I’m not sure how they date the books, but as I recall, those that mention the destruction of the Temple get placed after 70 CE. However, those mentions could just be edits. So because Paul says the Gospel is his and ‘ours,’ I’ll go with that for now. Of course Paul’s would be an earlier version than the one with an edit.

    More — “The days will come when not one stone will be left upon another; all will be thrown down” (Lk 21:6 etc.) Odd that the Gospel ‘prophesies’ put into Jesus’ mouth are incorrect. Obviously, there is a wall of the Temple still standing even today. The passage was not directed at Jews who would have known the truth of the matter.

    Jews would have known and still know today that Yahweh would not accept a human sacrifice (Jesus), because Yahweh did not accept Abraham’s attempted sacrifice of Isaac. The Abraham and Isaac story is also important to Muslims and is commemorated in a feast day.

  • Has the author put “Jesus’ friend Lazarus” in Luke? The friend Lazarus is only in John. And we know for a fact that Lazarus died again? No, John 21:23 says he will stay until Jesus returns.

    And was the daughter of Jairus actually dead? Compare Mark 5:21-43, Matthew 9:18-26, Luke 8:40-56 (RSV).

    Mark: “My little daughter is at the point of death. Come and lay your hands on her, so that she may be made well, and live.”

    Matthew: “My daughter has just died; but come and lay your hand on her, and she will live.”

    Luke: “He besought him to come to his house for he had an only daughter, about twelve years of age, and she was dying”

    In Luke, she is still alive. I’m not sure about Mark, but at the point of dying, one is still alive? Do you think the authors were trying to write ‘dogma’ or do you think they were trying to make you think? The Gospel does not tell us if the girl actually died prior to her “arising;” only that various story characters thought it was so – the mourners, the messenger(s), and presumably her parents. Jesus says she is sleeping. The Gospel writer(s) do not try to force us to a conclusion. It’s not dogma.

    .

  • A ton has been written about 1Timothy 2:12. Obviously Paul was not opposed to women speaking, as a large number of his missionaries were outspoken women! Probably 1Timothy 2:12 refers to the specific incident mentioned a few paragraphs earlier, where the speakers were in error.

    And in 1Corinthians 11:5, women are obviously speaking in Church because they are prophesying.

    You shouldn’t just paste the verses without interpretation.

    I see you left out 1Timothy 3:11, often translated in the better versions as ‘women who are deacons’

  • WTF does that prove? Nothing, except to a rapidly decreasing number of bible thumpers and literalists. No wonder people are leaving Xianity in droves. Women won’t put up with this shite any longer. They won’t. I hear too many stories of horrible things done to women by so-called Christians, that I fully understand WHY people are fed up and leaving.

  • The reason I posted them is they don’t need men to “interpret” them and apparently you missed that point.

  • Hold that thought, Sandi:

    Hey honey…hoooooney…you know how the Bible says you’re supposed to be my help meet…well, would you help me by making me a samich? Pleaaaaase! Thank you! And can I have some chips too?
    That verse works every time. 😉

  • Of course. It could just be edits, but which are the edits and which the original material, assuming any of it is real? even though so many people insist That it’s the word of god, no edits, nothing changes, et cetera. Paul also said that there were false letters from him circulating around. So either we have a possibility of forgeries. Or that letter itself was a forgery. Paul also warned that no one should listen to anyone but him.

    Amazing how much interpretation, management, massaging, scholarship, dating, wrangling, reimagining, magicking, and hermeneutics are required to clarify the word of the creator of the entire infinite universe. It’s almost as if he could not manage getting out a simple memo.

  • Now now the Bible never contradicts itself because it’s the word of god. To which the biblical literalist adds: “Dead, shmead, almost dead. What’s the difference? SQUIRREL!!!!!!!!!”

  • Christians did t know any better until recently. And yet other people — you know who you are, Shawnie– that without Christianity, we would have made no progress whatsoever.

    And yet, Paul says there is neither male no female in Christ. So it just took you 2000 years to figure out what was there in plain English.

  • Yes, and we have along way to go. As long as women are not recognized as visible images of the risen Christ, we remain attached to the patriarchal heritage, exercises in window dressing notwithstanding.

  • I would suppose that the recognized scholarship is almost entirely located in religion departments in religious colleges and universities — unfortunately not ever going to be unbiased enough — so Ben, your question of whether the Creator can write a memo will have to wait.

  • When you learn to control your foul mouthing perhaps I’ll answer you but if I see your moronic foul mouthing again I will certainly block you because of your arrogance.

  • I never said I hated or dispised you but I find your anti-Christian rhetoric both offensive and hateful. ;-(

  • I suspect the differences are deliberate and are a means of immunizing Jews against the Gospel. At least those Jews educated in ‘The Law’ would read carefully and not be seduced. Catholics don’t hear the differences in church because the set readings for liturgical years A, B, and C do not give opportunities to compare. I was gifted with a UBS ‘Synopsis’ (Kurt Aland) and so get plenty of edification whenever I open it and compare the side by side printing of parallel passages. The literary technique of ‘differences’ is not just in the books of the Gospel, but also the three accounts in Acts where Paul is on the road to Damascus differ. Zerwick and Grosvenor say, re the Acts 22 passage, “For the differences between this account and 9:4ff. there is no grammatical explanation.” Differences within the same book — deliberate? Oh, did I mention that the reform that was Christianity was marketed to Gentiles by Jews — perhaps to curb the problems in Goddess religion such as, incestuous deities, self-castrations by males, ritual M-F sex in temples, and possibly occasional human sacrifices. Likely some issue also with cost of temple meat.

  • I never said men have a right to oppress women but the fact is Christ stated quite plainly the man is head over the woman and no that does in no way condone oppression.

  • lol…..hold the pickles, hold the lettuce…..special orders don’t upset us….all we ask is that you let us serve it your way…….Have it your way….

  • I’m not anti Christian, or even anti theist. Far from it.

    I am anti the following:

    Using one’s religion as a weapon against others
    Dominionist
    Justifying plain old bigotry, religious or antigay or anti anyone else, as something special
    Claiming the other Christians are not true Christians like “me”
    Claiming special dispensation for being a special Christian like “me”
    People using their bibles as excuses to control the lives of others
    Hypocrisy masquerading as religion

    I hope that clarifies matters.

  • you’re only angry because what I say is true. Check out the Pew surveys and Barna.com, the latter being a Christian polling site which is reputable. Sorry about the frothing on your mouth.

  • There were communities of Jesus-following Jews in the first century. They were a minority to be sure, and most Jews did reject it, but it is generally agreed by scholars that the author of the Gospel of Matthew was Jewish and wrote for a community of Jews that belonged to the Jesus movement.

  • The assertion that Matthew wrote in Hebrew is based on a suggestion from a church father, but this supposed Hebrew or Aramaic original has never been found and there are no signs of translation in the Greek Matthew we have.

  • Well, technically, no faith is real; faith is an imagined concept. So it doesn’t seem logical that any religious faith can lay claim to being real. It’s only the money they collect, the gold they buy with it and the subjugation of its worshippers that are real.

  • Under current Jewish law, only a man can initiate a divorce and I believe that’s what the author is getting at. The Mishnah, however, documents 1st century cases of women petitioning the court for divorce. There has also been an archaeological find in the Judean desert — where Jesus and John the Baptist would have spent time — from the early 100s in which a woman issues a divorce certificate to her husband. Whether this was permitted was a controversial subject, and this is perhaps what Josephus and John the Baptist were getting at. Separately, it has been suggested that John was a member of the Qumran community, and they too had conflicting views on divorce, just as Hillel and Shammai did. Perhaps John saw it as Jesus did: no divorce allowed.

  • Beware the siren song of scientism. Tradition trumps preserved documents. Matthew wrote first and he wrote in Hebrew whereas the putative Marcan Priority initially issued from Prots in Germany who were not too keen on Matt 16:19,19

  • Sure, a woman can be a priest like a man can be a Nun and a Falcon can be a fish.

  • The Orthodox have a Church for they have Apostolic Succession, Holy Orders, Eucharist.

    Piskies do not have even one of those components of a church.

    They do have some snappy hymns though,

  • When Jesus chose to ordain only men, the standards of the world were that so-called women priests were acceptable.

  • ]And Saul, as yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest, [2] And asked of him letters to Damascus, to the synagogues: that if he found any men and women of this way, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem. [3] And as he went on his journey, it came to pass that he drew nigh to Damascus; and suddenly a light from heaven shined round about him. [4] And falling on the ground, he heard a voice saying to him: Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? [5] Who said: Who art thou, Lord? And he: I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. It is hard for thee to kick against the goad.

    [6] And he trembling and astonished, said: Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? [7] And the Lord said to him: Arise, and go into the city, and there it shall be told thee what thou must do. Now the men who went in company with him, stood amazed, hearing indeed a voice, but seeing no man.

  • To be a Christian means one is following Christ but how can that be if they do not become a member of the Church He established.

    One who does not have the Church as his mother can not have God as his father.

  • Perhaps if you treat others as you would like to be treated you wouldn’t look so foolish all the time? The fact is I haven’t met a homosexual on a Christian site or commenting on Christian beliefs that didn’t condemn Christians that stood firmly on God’s word.

  • I thought it would be a waste of time to answer your question, and it was.

    There are plenty of Christian gay people. There is your first lie. There are plenty of people who come to opposite conclusions about gay people than you do, not despite what their bibles say but because of it. The fact that you don’t consider them Christians says nothing about them and everything about you,

    You equate disagreement with hate or despite. But if someone isn’t your sort of Christian, despite is the first place you go.

    If you want to be treated nicely, perhaps you should review your comment history and start treating people as YOU would like to be treated. I just did review your comment history.

    If you want your religious beliefs respected, start having respectable beliefs. Whatever your “qualifications” as a Christian may be, you simply don’t respect others. Your version of Christianity is a weapon.

    Stop hiding behind “god’s word” to excuse yourself.

    Have a nice life.

  • Well, if Paul wanted to take over the Jesus movement, this is quite a founder’s story. Pretty self-serving, buying himself the role as the titular head of the Jesus movement.
    It’s presumed that Paul had epilepsy. Paul was a Hellenized Jew and was the one who wrote in Greek and moved the Jesus movement into a Greek orbit as new Christians were recruited in what is not western Turkey and Greece. It lost its base in Israel as represented by Jesus’ real apostles.

  • I won’t dispute that there may have been a few Jews who converted to Paul’s religion; however, the “God-fearers” who followed Paul were not Jews but rather Gentiles associated with synagogues, people who wanted monotheism, but not the 613 rules of the Jews. My impression is that the scholarly view that a book was written for Jews is based on slim evidence such as Jesus reportedly saying he came for the Jews. Paul says he is the Apostle to the Gentiles, with his mission supposedly blessed by Peter himself.

  • Jesus taught there is one flock and one shepherd and He chose His royal steward, Peter, to act in His place until He returns at the end of time.

    You refuse what Jesus commands yet complain when others point you out as who you are – not a Christian

  • 4. You see, dearly beloved sons and venerable brothers, how much vigilance is needed to keep the disease of this terrible evil from infecting and killing your flocks. Do not cease to diligently defend your people against these pernicious errors. Saturate them with the doctrine of Catholic truth more accurately each day. Teach them that just as there is only one God, one Christ, one Holy Spirit, so there is also only one truth which is divinely revealed. There is only one divine faith which is the beginning of salvation for mankind and the basis of all justification, the faith by which the just person lives and without which it is impossible to please God and to come to the community of His children.[2] There is only one true, holy, Catholic church, which is the Apostolic Roman Church. There is only one See founded in Peter by the word of the Lord,[3] outside of which we cannot find either true faith or eternal salvation. He who does not have the Church for a mother cannot have God for a father, and whoever abandons the See of Peter on which the Church is established trusts falsely that he is in the Church.[4] Thus, there can be no greater crime, no more hideous stain than to stand up against Christ, than to divide the Church engendered and purchased by His blood, than to forget evangelical love and to combat with the furor of hostile discord the harmony of the people of God.

    http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9singul.htm

    You hate the truth and prefer Indifferentism. Well, you have free will

  • Another head like to Christ must be invented – that is, another Christ if besides the one Church, which is His body, men wish to set up another. “See what you must beware of – see what you must avoid – see what you must dread. It happens that, as in the human body, some member may be cut off a hand, a finger, a foot. Does the soul follow the amputated member? As long as it was in the body, it lived; separated, it forfeits its life. So the Christian is a Catholic as long as he lives in the body: cut off from it he becomes a heretic – the life of the spirit follows not the amputated member” (S. Augustinus, Sermo cclxvii., n. 4)

    http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13satis.htm

    Because you have a very poor idea of what it means to be a Christian, it is to be expected that you’d be shocked to learn that IANS does not consider you a christian for iANS is merely following CatholicTradition whereas you follow the false tradition of your protestant progenitors who rejected Jesus, His Church, and His commandments.

  • Honey, I am An atheist. And thank the god I don’t believe in for that.

    I have a very clear idea of what it is to be a Christian. I’ve met two types. Those who follow their religion for themselves and be the best people they can be. And those who insist others follow their religion, which they use as a weapon against others.

    Hyper Protestants, like hyper Catholics, each insists the other is hell bound. They’re both right.

  • I don’t hate the truth. ITs just your truth, not THE truth.

    Imdifferentism? Is that a political ideology where I frankly couldn’t possibly not care any less about the religious stuff than I already don’t?

  • Knowing the bible God’s word condemns homosexuality as it does all sexual sins you entire comment is moot. The only hate being expressed here is yours by you calling biblical Christians unnecessary rude names because we point out your known propaganda that homosexuals can be in some way Christian when the bible proves there’s no such thing as a homosexual Christian. If you think I’ll compromise God’s word to get you to be nice to me I will always choose God’s word in hopes some day you’ll hear God’s word rather than satan’s lie and get saved.

    1 Cor 6:9-11 9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor wantons, nor buggerers,
    10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners shall inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified, in the Name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

    Gal 5:16 So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17 For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever you want. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.
    19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

    1 Timothy 1:9-11
    9 Knowing this, that the Law is not given unto a righteous man, but unto the lawless and disobedient, to the ungodly, and to sinners, to the unholy, and to the profane, to murderers of fathers and mothers, to manslayers,
    10 To whoremongers, to buggerers , to menstealers, to liars, to the perjured, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to wholesome doctrine,
    11 Which is according to the glorious Gospel of the blessed God, which is committed unto me.

    BTW all born again Christians love me and respect me so where does that leave you?

  • So, all you are saying is you are a fundamentalist Christian, that anyone Christian who disagrees with you is not a Christian, and that I must hate you because I think you’re full of it.

    All born again Christians love you? How nice!!!!

    And how ludicrous.

  • You will find Christians, gay or straight, who strenuously object to biblical literalism–whatever the subject.

  • I can think of a couple who do not respect you. Perhaps you should rephrase that to “biblical literalists” or “fundamentalists.”

  • Not so much “unacceptable” as “unimaginable.” Women priests weren’t thought about for much the same reason that Maytag washers weren’t thought about. Having said that, there does seem to be biblical evidence of female ministry (priesthood? maybe, probably not) and there has been recent archeological evidence that has challenged the belief that all priests were male. Like most archeological evidence, there is a lot of room for interpretation and it is far from conclusive proof.

  • It’s much better than being a fundamental homosexual that chooses to be blind to God’s word

  • There’s your argument and the bible doesn’t support your propaganda about the oxymoron a christain homosexual. You do know that one is commanded to repent of their sin don’t you and if one repents one puts that sin off and therefore is no longer a homosexual. Lesson on sin over. Perhaps you should review your belief on sin using the bible and see where we are commanded to repent?

  • Actually, pre vatican II, the position of the catholic church was: outside the church there is no salvation. The implication being that the catholic church was the only “true” church. Post vatican II the teaching has been that the fullest representation of Christ is contained within the catholic church but there are elements of the true church in other denominations.

    The dispute between catholics and orthodox is a bit more complicated. IMHO a lot of it boils down to attempts to codify a mystery–the two sides expressed the mystery differently and ended up breaking up over it.

    Just a small nit to pick–the roman catholic church is one of 23 rites under the umbrella of the “catholic church.” It is the largest and most known but there are also the melchites, the maronites, and 20 others. Each have their unique liturgy, profess the same faith but may have some subtle differences in theology. Many have their own patriarch but all fall under the authority of the bishop of rome.

  • And how does that change the fact the bible condemns homosexuality and their disrespect for me makes no difference? But then again God will hold you responsible for condoning what He condemns and you being responsible for them not seeing heaven?

    1 Cor 6:9-11 9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor wantons, nor buggerers,
    10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners shall inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified, in the Name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

    Gal 5:16 So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17 For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever you want. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.
    19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

    1 Timothy 1:9-11
    9 Knowing this, that the Law is not given unto a righteous man, but unto the lawless and disobedient, to the ungodly, and to sinners, to the unholy, and to the profane, to murderers of fathers and mothers, to manslayers,
    10 To whoremongers, to buggerers to menstealers, to liars, to the perjured, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to wholesome doctrine,
    11 Which is according to the glorious Gospel of the blessed God, which is committed unto me.

    I’d rather be hated by the world than have that burden on my shoulders you bear.

  • That priest may or may not have been too flippant. Once concern I had with the article was the distinction between the pre and post resurrection Jesus. All of the gospels and all of the epistles and all of the rest of the New Testament were written post resurrection. That event filtered everything they knew about the pre resurrection Jesus.

  • I absolutely agree…As do 3/4 of those who claim to be Christian, and 2/3 of the rest of the world.

  • “Prisca” and “Aquila” have always been controversial figures for the church. There were early attempts to masculinize the names but that didn’t last very long once people had access to original texts. It is clear that there were female deacons in the early church. The question that’s currently being tossed around is: were these deacons those of “holy orders” (laying on of hands, etc.) or the more generic definition of deacon as “servant?” It should come as no big surprise that the “official” position is that of the latter.

  • Remember that the church existed for almost 200 years before the bible, as we know it, came to exist.

  • As Nietzsche once said (paraphrased) the reason I do not believe in christianity is because of christians.

  • I wonder if he would have the same reaction to a male using the same type of language–which I did not find particularly disturbing.

  • Your last sentence is absolutely correct. Mark might have been written before Paul did his writing–although unlikely. Quelle–the source common to the synoptics could have been written before Paul. Since the fall of Jerusalem is cited in the Gospels, they are dated post 70 CE.

  • The basis is the fact that the authors speak of an event that happened in year 70 of the common error. You may not agree with that but that does not mean that there is no basis for the opinion.

  • First century Jews would not have taken “The days will come when not one stone will be left upon another; all will be thrown down” (Lk 21:6 etc.)” literally. They would have recognized this sentence in the extent of the destruction–despite a wall surviving.

    As far as “human sacrifice,” that’s why Paul called it a stumbling block for the Jews and an absurdity for the Gentiles.

  • “The bible means what it says. See, it says so in the Bible!” It’s a good thing the early church had a grasp of King Jame’s English.

  • Quoting those who can’t be questioned? Like Paul, pseudo Paul, the folks who Identified as Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, James, Peter, and the unknown author of Hebrews?

  • The fact that Paul’s ministry was to the Gentiles, does not preclude the ministry of others to the Jews. Matthew’s community is thought to have been Jewish and Johns is thought to have been Jews who had been excommunicated.

  • I think what he is saying is that people confuse biblical accounts of resuscitation with The Resurrection. I did not interpret him as saying that Jesus’ was not a resurrection–simply that the others were not.

  • Resuscitation doesn’t mean only apparently dead. Not even in current medical terminology. Resuscitation, in the case of the Gospel stories, means that they were dead, brought back to life and eventually died again.

  • It was not necessary to write in Hebrew (and for the typical person that would be aramaic or what is called syriac today) in order to have a Jewish audience. By the time that text was written, the community he addressed was multilingual.

  • The early christians believed that Jesus would return in their lifetime. That is evident throughout Paul’s writing. It was a major crisis of faith when people started dying off. That is also in Paul’s writing. So are we to take the words indicating that Lazurus would live until Jesus return literally? No, We take them to be an indication of when the community thought Jesus would return.

  • Scripture never speaks for itself. As proof of that look at how you selectively quote and not give all of scripture.

  • Francis has expressed the opinion that JPII’s document was magesterial, coming from the chair of Peter and thus infallible. Not every theologian has the same opinion and Francis has not expressed his opinion “infallibly.”

  • Yeah you got me there since I use an earlier old English version. Oh wait so what other assumptions do you want to make and continue to embarrass yourself?

  • Oh no’s you got me again ……

    2 Tim: 16 For the whole Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable to teach, to convince, to correct, and to instruct in righteousness,
    17 That the man of God may be absolute, being made perfect unto all good works.

    But thank you for finally admitting you have little to no faith in God’s word or His ability to preserve His word despite your unbelief.

  • I made no assumptions. I provided an illustration. I could care less what version you used.

  • It does not change the fact that your interpretation of the Bible says that it condemns homosexuality.
    Citing those who cannot be questioned?

  • Where in the Bible does it say that every argument in life has to be supported by the Bible.
    Before giving any lesson on sin, take a look at the log in your own eye.

  • Don’t assume that I have little to no faith in G-D’s word nor Her/His ability to preserve the Word. You can assume that those concepts mean something differently for me and you.

  • One of the early objections to women priests wasn’t so much that they don’t have a penis but because they do have a vagina. They perceived the act of menstruating as defiling the eucharist.

  • We will never know with certainty what Jesus said. We’ve got some very good ideas of what he said and the general things he talked about but there was nobody around with a tape recorder.

  • The epilepsy theory has not gained a lot of traction. Perhaps because it was first proposed by a neurologist and not a theologian. As a former religious and retired doctor with a specialty in neuro, it makes a lot of sense to me: the hypergraphia, the moments of ecstacy, the preoccupation with sex. But, even if it was epilepsy, that is not to say that G-D didn’t use that as a tool to help spread the Gospel of Jesus.

  • fallogocentric? is this the same as: phallogocentrism a neologism coined by Jacques Derrida to refer to the privileging of the masculine (phallus) in the construction of meaning.

  • Again, it has nothing personal to do with patriarchal Israel, let alone blaming the Jews who lived under the Old Law. This about cultural criticism, not about blaming anyone. Some of the Christian Churches, as well as other religious institutions, are even more sexist. But the patriarchal phase of salvation history is passing away, and all forms of religious sexism will be superseded, hopefully soon.

  • You can’t question God eitherso your point is moot and all semblance of Christianity according to you. So now that the cat is out of the bag that you’re an atheist feigning a Christian why continue your charade?

  • I no longer believe you’re a Christian but there is hope for you in Christ since you don’t believe in the bible I offer a way to salvation through Christ.

  • You can’t question G-D. It seems that the Bible is full of people who questioned G-D and went on to become her/his champion.
    I can assure you that I am not an atheist. I realize that is your favorite comeback for someone who does not conform to your flavor of christianity. Go pick on someone else.

  • “not believe in the Bible.” It seems to me that we are to believe in G-D. Believing in the Bible elevates that to the status of a god. That is idolatry.

    The wise man points his finger to the moon and all the fool sees is the finger. The Bible is a finger that points us to G-D but it is not god. Jesus never said, “go forth and write a book.” The church existed for almost 200 years without “a bible.” Consider the implications of that. You claim to have gone to the seminary and read over 100 books on the bible–exactly how did the Bible come to be? What was the process for determining which of the dozens of gospels would be included in the canon and which were not. Who organized the multiple letters of Paul to the church in corinth into two “books?”

    The bible is the Word of G-D but it is not G-D. And it is not the only source of authority. The authority that promulgated its existence is at least as authoritative.

  • It’s time for your medication Bob. That sentence makes no sense. The Bible is not the way to salvation. Jesus is the way to salvation. The only way.

  • They would know “no stone left” was an incorrect statement. Why would they excuse that?

    Having Jesus as the ‘one and only’ sacrifice of the Book of Hebrews may have been a matter of some urgency if human sacrifices continued in the backwoods.

  • This notion that the writers of the books of the Gospels had ‘communities’ is — I believe — a fairly recent invention, as I recall no mention of it years ago. I could be wrong. I think there is far too much similarity among the books of the Gospel for them to be totally independently written in separate communities, although there could have been some independent predecessor documents, now lost. Sower’s Sevens number sets indicate that all four books were edited by one hand at one point in time early on.

  • I don’t recall Francis saying JPII’s document was infallible; rather ‘definitive’

  • Early mankind saw menstrual blood as scary, so women were isolated, ‘untouchable’, and anything they women were touched were taboo to go near. So this nonsense is a hold over from pagan superstition.

  • You have to recognize the code words for infallibility. That’s really the only way it could be definitive, with reexamining the issue seen as a non possibility.

  • When I was in the seminary in the early 80s that was the conventional idea. I’m not familiar with sowers sevens but my read show substantial differences between the synoptics with John being completely different.

  • Correct and incorrect take on different meaning in the Eastern culture than here. They would have recognized it as a story that captured the essence of the truth.

    There are ways to conceptualize the death of Jesus as other than a human sacrifice. The fact remains that he was crucified. It is not surprising that that would become to be understood in the context of sacrificial offering.

  • I just looked up the Sower’s Sevens number sets. They do not necessarily indicate that the four books were edited by one hand. The alternative and conventional theory is that there were two original written sources (Mark and Q) and Matthew and Luke drew on those sources with possibly some material unique to themselves. Common sources would explain why certain things are the same while not not negating the principle that the texts were written for different audiences.

    As far as the “recentness” of that, Raymond Brown talks about it in his 1979 book, “the community of the beloved disciples” and he cites sources from 1970 and earlier. Most of my library is packed away or else I could give more specific references.

    FWIW, others have written about similar number patterns found in the scriptures. Some people seem to have way too much time on their hands but that’s just my opinion.

  • It’s pretty much accepted that that particular prediction was actually a postdiction. That is to say, the author put the words in Jesus’ mouth in order to make a point. They were written after the fall of Jerusalem and the author was most likely fully aware of the actual physical conditions. That’s not what was important. The fall of Jerusalem was a defining moment for the Jewish people. They went from being people of the temple to people of the synagogue. The one “place” (the arc of the covenant) that had been with them since leaving Egypt was gone. Utter and complete destruction–regardless of the fact that a wall remained.

    As far as “human sacrifice” maybe that should be understood after the fact as well. It is a given that Jesus was crucified and died. If you adhere to the Christian faith, he rose again. The idea of a loving G-D sending his/her only son IN ORDER TO DIE is a little barbaric. Another way of looking at it is that Jesus made a choice of living a life in fidelity to his mission. That ruffled feathers and created a situation that was not politically acceptable to the powers that be. Jesus could have shut up, cowered to the pharisees, and preached the party line. He would probably have lived to a ripe old age. But he didn’t. He chose to remain faithful and that had consequences. After the fact, people told the story through the lenses that they had–the idea of a sacrificial offering. If this is an after the fact reconceptualization, it may seem to invalidate the whole concept of atonement. I don’t see that as a necessary consequence–particularly if you look at the Gospel as the LIFE, death and resurrection; not simply the death and resurrection. G-D was reconciling the world, in Christ, even before he died.

  • The holdover isn’t so much current (thank G-D) simply part of the mixture of what was going on in the early Church.

  • That is not entirely correct. Some of the early “piskie” bishops were consecrated by roman rite bishops. That preserved apostolic succession in those particular lines. I also seem to be a little bit confused; can you point out where Ms Lundeen opposes the things you say she opposes.

  • Well then who’s church were you talking about? But knowing you don’t believe the bible why carry on your charade? Oh and BTW I’m neither catholic or protestsant.

  • The only church that existed at the time–the universal or catholic church. Your grasp at the history of Christianity leaves a little bit to be desired. Are you sure that you went to the seminary? And they did not provide a history class?

    Christians believe in Jesus. Biblians believe in the Bible. Unlike Jesus, the Bible is not G-D. That is not to say that the Bible does not have a unique place in pointing us to G-D. No Bob, it’s clear that you are neither Protestant or Catholic nor Christian but it is clear that you do your fair share of protesting.

    Your attempts at mind reading are getting a bit lame. Yet it is a game that you play when you can not defend yourself. Go ahead and throw your insults, you are just demonstrating what kind of human being you are.

  • “believe in the bible,” What the hell does that mean? Am I to believe that G-D created the world and everything that exists twice? Am I to believe that there were two floods? Am I to believe that the world is 6,000+ years old despite concrete evidence to the contrary? Which versions of the multiple OT battle stories am I to believe? Was it the sermon on the mount or the sermon on the plain? Did Jesus forbid men to divorce their wives or did he make an exception in the case of “porneia?” Was Jesus’ last meal the celebration of the first night of Passover or did he die at the same time that the sacrificial lambs were being killed in preparation for that meal. Are we to believe that the 73 books of the Bible were handed down in their present form as if they were carved on stone tablets?

    Are we to believe someone who will not hesitate to manipulate the word of G-D by stringing together a series of bible verses and proceed to beat people over the head until they bow in obeisance? Are we to believe someone who will use the word of G-D to impose burdens on people that can not be lifted? Are we to believe the pharisees of the 21st century? Are we to believe a self proclaimed biblian who has made it perfectly clear that he has no desire to follow Jesus.

    No Bob, you have proven exactly what you are and it is not a Christian.

  • My understanding is that the early Church had to fit in to a pagan environment with social mores that included a lot of beliefs and attitudes toward women. They would have been attacked if they were too radically different. Christianity has always adapted to local cultures.

  • Neither protestant nor catholic. If you are a Christian that makes you orthodox. Learn your own history you ignorant fool.

  • Being a male is essential to what you are being Jewish or having a certain hair color is merely accidental.

    The Ministerial Priesthood is spiritual Fatherhood and being a Father requires you be male.

  • An atheist who has a clear idea of what it means to be Christian?

    A rabid raccoon bit you, right?

  • FAITH. The acceptance of the word of another, trusting that one knows what the other is saying and is honest in telling the truth. The basic motive of all faith is the authority (or right to be believed) of someone who is speaking. This authority is an adequate knowledge of what he or she is talking about, and integrity in not wanting to deceive. It is called divine faith when the one believed is God, and human faith when the persons believed are human beings. (Etym. Latin fides, belief; habit of faith; object of faith.)

  • You are prolyy referring to the Dutch-Touch which happened in the 1930s when some “Old Catholic Church” Bishops concelebrated ordaining Anglican Bishops.

    However, that does not obviate Catholic Tradition that teaches one is only a Catholic Bishop is hone is ordained by a Catholic Bishop in Communion with Rome for the Bishopric includes Jurisdiction and not just Holy Orders.

  • Patriarchal gender ideology is utter silliness, that’s for sure. Refusing to face this reality is *really* silliness on silts.

  • Just in case you read my paper, is there any specific “silliness” you want to discuss? Or are you just shooting from the hip?

  • Sorry, no wall of the Temple still stands.

    English historian Simon Goldhill says of it on pages 4 & 7 in his book, The Temple of Jerusalem,

    “The wall actually had no religious significance at all in Herod’s time: where people now pray was no more than a road at the bottom of the wall which held up the platform on which the Temple stood. It was a functional solution to the architectural problem of the platform, and not part of the Temple itself.”

  • Wow I can’t believe you went there wondering if God is male or female because that is paganism. Now what did Jesus say on how to pray. Matt 6:9. Now would you like to know how to become a Christian and serve the Christian God of the bible?

  • You know nothing about Christianity which is proven when you state you don’t know if God is male or female and you can’t question those that wrote scripture guided by the Holy Spirit. So which church in the bible was the first catholic church? Corinthian, Ephesian, Philippian, Colassian, Thessalonian or Galatian?

  • Your assertions are not only undermined by your appeal to the putative errors of a long-ago culture, they are negated by it, for you your own self are a slave-product of this post-christian culture.

    Your use of linguistic neologisms make me see you as a pyromaniac in a field of straw men.

    There can be no doubt you do take your self seriously- and that is sad – but IANS thought that silliness on stilts is savoring of a more light-heart dismissal of your claims.

    The Incarnation consisted of God becoming man and He will always exist as both God and Man owing to the unchangeable reality of The Hypostatic Union.

    And as it is the truth that there are aught but two sexes – male and female He created them- you are constrained to use gender to befog the truth and yours is a fools errand.

    C’est la vie. You do prove the fact of free will 🙂

  • I very nearly became a Christian nearly 50 years ago. I’m always grateful to people or rabid raccoons who remind me why it was a bad idea.

  • You have no idea of what you are talking about.

    Look up the word, Gebirah,and you might come to, eventually, understand that King Solomon enthroned his Mother, Bathsheba as Queen. He even bowed down to her. She was Queen and occupied a powerful office. (1 Kings 2:12-19)

    And that occurred in a culture at which you sneer.

    Now, maybe you will begin to see justification for why we Catholics Have Jesus as King (male) and Mary as Queen (female) but prollily not as your revolution is about destruction and tearing down what you clearly do not even begin to understand.

  • Wow, you have some basic reading comprehension problems don’t you? Where did I “wonder” if G-D is male or female. How would you know how to become a christian? You are a biblian.

  • No, that’s not what I was referring to. I was referring to valid consecrations.

  • That’s not what 1 Kings 2:12-19 says in my copy to the New America Bible, Revised Edition (published by the US conference of Catholic Bishops).

  • Men can be monks. Women can be nuns. Monks can be ordained as priests. Why is it that nuns cannot ordained as priests?

    Do you know what “phallogocentrism” means? Is patriarchal gender ideology a dogma of the Christian faith?

  • The body is male *or* female. Human flesh is male *and* female. The eternal Word was not a male before the incarnation. That the Word become incarnate as a male is part of God embracing all the limitations of the human condition, including gender. What really matters is that God became human. For the redemption, and the sacramental economy, the incarnate masculinity of Jesus is as incidental as the color of his eyes.

  • The patriarchal covenant of the Old Law has not been revoked but has been superseded by the sacramental covenant of the New Law. This is not to sneer at the Old Law, it is simply to recognize that we are now under the New Law. Mary is Mother of God, Mother of the Eucharist, Mother of the Church, and Predecessor of the Apostles (Catholic Catechism #773). Why is it that only males can be successors of the apostles? Because of lingering patriarchal gender ideology, plain and simple; there is no dogmatic impediment to the ordination of women to the sacramental priesthood and the episcopate.

  • God became man and there is not one thing you can do to wish or explain that away.

    In the Incarnation Did did not embrace Original sin, thus, your claim God embraced all the limitations of humanity is eviscerated.

    Why did Jesus teach us to call For Our Heavenly Father?

    What is it with you and your materialistic misandry?

  • You sloughed-off the response that they culture you ridicule had a Queen with real power, certainly more power than any woman in America ever has.

    You can stick with your inability to make distinctions, your crude and historical assertions (so easily proven wrong) and your neologisms and your straw men.

    IANS corrected your odd errors and gave you a few shots to respond and you simply sloughed-off the corrections, refused to answer them, and returned to your man-hating rhetoric.

    Adios….

  • Your reasoning is incorrect. God embraced all the limitations of the human condition to REDEEM us from original sin, not to embrace original sin. God comes to us where we are. As a woman, he would not have been able to even enter a synagogue. Jesus used the term Father because he was ministering to patriarchal Israel, not because “God the Father” is exclusively male. See the Catechism of the Catholic Church, sections, #239, #370, and #2779, to clarify your understanding of this linguistic issue. Sorry, but you are confusing words with realities; words do *not* exhaust the realities they describe. This applies to created realities, and even more so to divine realities. Stop falsely accusing me of misandry, and do your homework! 🙂

  • Who is “IANS”? Where is my “man-hating rhetoric”? Sorry, but you seem to be so invested in phallogocentric, patriarchal gender ideology, that you cannot even distinguish between the unique ministerial vocation of the Blessed Virgin Mary and the common ministerial vocation of the 12 pre-Easter male apostles and their post-Easter successors, male and female. See the Catechism of the Catholic Church, sections #773 and #973; then study St John Paul II’s Theology of the Body, and pray for understanding.

  • You can assure me you’re not an atheists but your comments assure me that you are.

  • Yeah especially when you wrote this above “Don’t assume that I have little to no faith in G-D’s word nor Her/His ability to preserve the Word.” Yes you got caught in a blatant lie eh? Actually I am a born again Christian and yes it took me a long time to comprehend it was a free gift and all I needed to do is follow Christ instructions. Do you want to be a born again Christian so you can know that simple answer that God is male?

  • People argue about which statements are infallible. Bottom line, no man is infallible. But agreed, the current Pope is not going to revisit the issue of women priests.

  • So yes, fairly recent. And a theory dear to the hearts of moderns no doubt, who would like to believe that committees formulated the books of the Gospel democratically. Do you have any idea of the type of work products that come out of committees? Probably wishful thinking to suppose the books came from committees. There are not ‘necessarily’ Sower’s Sevens, but enough indication of such to give me pause (and delight). Cross-book number sets for loaves and fishes indicate a single hand edited

  • Of course I realize that the prophesy was written after the fact. And Paul making Jesus into something he was not was definitely after the fact. By the way, the Ark of the Covenant was lost long before the destruction in 70 CE, like 500 years earlier??

    The idea that the Creation could be fixed by blood-letting does not resonate at all with me. I like the elements of the Gospel story that show that all of us can transform our world, that the Kin_dom is coming for all of us and we are it. Weirdly, the idea of Jesus as a savior makes him more important than the Father, as only Jesus is powerful enough to fix the Creation — the Father cannot do it by himself.

  • I do not agree that you conclusions follow of necessity. My reference to the 70’s was simply a reference to the material that I have handy. I have no doubt that it goes back further as does the two source theory for the synoptics. I’m not sure what the connection is between “moderns” and committees…… The evidence is clear that the books of the bible were codified into the current canon by the early church. I am not familiar with any documentation of committee work.

  • Because they do. You are thinking as a westerner. The eastern thought process is different. They are much more comfortable with the concept of a story that is not necessarily tied to the concepts of correct or incorrect. Westerners often prefer to see things in black and white. That’s not how the rest of the world operates.

  • Still doing it Bob? Didn’t anyone ever teach you the difference between a question and a statement? You are no more a born again christian than a person eating a hamburger is ronald mcdonald.
    If you assert that G-D is male, you have made G-D finite. You have created G-D in your own image. But that’s what you’ve been doing all along isn’t it. Projecting your hate and your insecurities onto G-D. Sorry, that dog don’t hunt.

  • Whatever makes you feel good in that little cocoon you have built for yourself. Are the rooms really padded? You seem to have a very difficult time adjusting when someone refutes your arguments with the very tool that you use to bully people.

  • I do not think that we can conclude that Paul made Jesus into something that he is not. Almost 2000 years of testimony suggest otherwise. I would be surprised if blood letting resonated with anyone today. In 30 CE, when lambs were still being slaughtered in observance of the Passover, it would have resonated with a lot of people. I do not find it surprising at all that the authors of the scriptures incorporated that into their story of salvation history.

  • Because they do. The strongest reason for believing that something happens is the fact that it happens. The eastern way of thinking does not conform to the black and white notions of the west.

  • The “real apostles” ended up in india, egypt, rome and places in between. Paul was not the only one two write in. The deuteropauline letters were also written in greek as were the epistles of james and peter.

  • Paul wasn’t among the disciples who walked with the historical Jesus. That’s not the same thing as saying that he never met Jesus. His conversion story is one example. Another is the time he spent with the people who had walked with the historical Jesus. It was only after this that he began his ministry. Jesus rose, is alive, and promised to be with us. Those are not just words. The early christians knew how to introduce people to Jesus. We should all take a lesson from them.

  • A lie? Your grasp on reality is slipping. Since when does that sentence mean that I am wondering as to whether G-D is male or female.

    God is male? Thanks for confirming how much of a fool you are. If G-D is truly G-D, G-D is not confined by the limits of our language. Jesus was male. “God?” No, G-D doesn’t have a penis. But thanks for demonstrating how easy it is to make G-D into your own image. You’ve been doing that all along–creating a god that is narrow minded, judgmental, insecure, and preoccupied with sex (gay sex too, go figure).

  • I don’t believe in god, not any god most religionists would recognize. When a person supposes that maybe “God didn’t use that (epilepsy) as a tool to help spread the Gospel of Jesus”, that is an act of religious imagination. If a million people believe that or any theory it doesn’t make it true or any truer than if one person believes it.

  • I’m sorry.
    A professor brings a can of beer into class one day. He holds it up in front of him and asks the class: What is this? There is an almost uniform cry of, “a can of beer.”
    No really. How do you know it’s a can of beer?
    It says so on the label. It looks just like every other can of beer I’ve had. Because my dad used to drink that very brand.
    .
    .
    .
    a student comes up, takes the can, breaks the flip top seal and takes a long swig. Wiping her mouth and letting out a loud belch she said, “That’s a can of beer.”

    The professor turns to the class and points to the student and says: “She KNOWS it’s a can of beer.”

    Some things you can’t really know until you’ve tasted.

  • I’m sorry, too. My life would have been more and easier had I had an authentic or for that matter, any direct experience of G-D, if I’d tasted. But doubt and questioning has been my path and made me an outsider in my family, my old faith tradition, and many circles (that is, when people find out).

    I tried to ‘make it work’ — oh how I tried. Oh, how I wanted to ‘taste’ to use your word, to “Know”–but I am of what I call an ancient and honorable tradition of agnostic. I know many good people of all faiths and respect them. But when it comes to the Philistines running the country now, particularly the Evangelicals and who practice a political ideology, I would define as unchristian, then i have to dissent and advocate against their ideology.

  • Yes and I will stop posting scripture after you said you couldn’t question the authors let alone know who the authors were. Why waste my time when you don’t believe it?

  • “Yes and I will stop posting scripture after you said you couldn’t question the authors” Praise be to G-D

    “let alone know who the authors were.” Some authors are known, some aren’t. I don’t think I ever made the blanket statement that we did not know who the authors were.

    “Why waste my time when you don’t believe it?” There goes your reading comprehension problems again. I asked what the hell it meant to say “believe the bible” and I gave several concrete examples of contradictory statements rendering literal belief impossible.

    But then again, I am not a Biblian, like you.

  • Very discerning commentary. Especially helpful is this insight: “According to Luke’s theology, not only were the Christian men in Damascus other Christs, so were the women!”

  • IANS will respond this one time only insofar the response illustrates your sloppy thinking which leads you to gross conclusions.

    That the Word become incarnate as a male is part of God embracing all the limitations of the human condition, including gender

    Original sin is a limitation of the human condition since the Fall. However, Jesus did not inherit original sin and so your assertion is false.

    The sex of a person is not a limitation at all for God created male and female and he said that His creation was good.

    You imagine your own self an enlightened man but your ideology had made you blind.

    Adios for a final time you miserable self-hating misandrist.

  • The Bible was codified? What does that have to do with anything? There is no documentation of committees, and why not? It’s just a theory. The two source theory is just a theory. Not everyone is impressed by it. It arbitrarily assumes no common editor. There will always be people who are satisfied to parrot what they have been told. People followed the Ark of the Covenant believing all sorts of things about it, just because someone told them to believe it. They were told they would die if they touched it. Do you know what was inside it?

  • Yes I realize that you believe many things that just aren’t supported in the bible which is why I give you so much rope to hang yourself with so much heresy. If you were Christian you would comprehend the things you mention aren’t contradictory but if you did your research all those questions are easily explained but knowing you already made up your mind I won’t waste my time knowing that all your foolish accusation are easily googled.

  • Why should a child of G-D listen to someone who claims to be a child of G-D yet doesn’t seem to know how to follow in the footsteps of his parents?

  • Where in the bible does it say that belief you have has to be articulated in the bible?
    Oh, I forgot, G-D created the world so as to look the millions of years old that it is. When a firmly held belief is confronted with the facts, the facts usually lose.

  • re: codified. Would it have been better had I used the word “formulated.” Why no documentation of committees? Why should there be? There is documentation of the process. Yes, the two source theory is a theory as is the four source. The theories derive from empirical data–not simple regurgitation of beliefs. I have yet to see any reputable scholar argue the case for “a common editor.”

  • Oh my, so “IANS” means “I Am Not Spartacus.” Sorry that I missed the obvious. Do you also have a REAL NAME?

    Original sin is NOT a *natural* limitation of the human condition. It was an *uncreated* human act which led to the Fall. Original sin was utterly unnatural, not willed by God. It led to the artificial “curse” of disunity between man and woman (Genesis 3:16), replacing the original unity of man and woman, as it was created in the beginning (Genesis 1 and 2). This is very well explained in St John Paul II’s “Theology of the Body.”

    In the same book, from cover to cover, it is explained that the body is normally male *or* female. Human nature (the biblical “flesh”) is always male *and* female. Having male *or* female bodies *is* a natural limitation, which is also a GIFT intended for procreation, and THIS IS VERY GOOD. But male and female bodies are made of exactly the same HOMOGENEOUS FLESH, as the book explains. May I recommend that you study this book, trying to avoid reading it via a patriarchal lens, and pray for understanding.

    I don’t take your insults and innuendos personally, and will pray that the Holy Spirit will penetrate your hardened patriarchal head and make it a bit softer.

  • Look up the Trail of Blood that your church is responsible for before you assume anything else that makes you look foolish?

  • IANS responds only for lurkers and not directly to you for you have faith in your own opinions.

    TOB is the personal opinion of a Pope. It is not Doctrine and the title alone obviates that.

    Vatican 1 infallibly defines the Holy Ghost was not given to the Ppoe so that he may create novel doctrines.

    Right form the get-go, there is an astonishing error in that the Pope speaks of Genesis as Myth and he errs widely in claiming :

    .The problem of solitude is manifested only in the context of the second account of the creation of man. The first account ignores this problem. There man is created in one act as male and female. “God created man in his own image…male and female he created them”

    That goes entirely against Tradition and reason and so IANS can see why such a fabulous claim would gain the approval of modernists.

    http://kolbecenter.org/the-traditional-catholic-doctrine-of-creation/

  • The only fool here is you. You don’t even know the history of your own denomination.

  • Then Bethsabee came to king Solomon, to speak to him for Adonias: and the king arose to meet her, and bowed to her, and sat down upon his throne: and a throne was set for the king’s mother, and she sat on his right hand

  • Ok mister know it all what is my denomination and well see who is the fool here?

  • in your opinion. Since you hide behind anonymity, that opinion is also worthless.

  • Oh poor Bob. Loses an argument and come’s out crying “you are an unbeliever.” I’m sure that you can do better. Perhaps if you were a Christian and not a Biblian you would understand.

  • IANS noted the Dutch Touch and identified the decade in which it happened, the 1930s.

    You claim something similar happened but early on in Anglicanism.

    Such an unsourced claim is worthless

  • Study the 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church. The Theology of the Body is all over it. Hugh Owen, the author of the list you provided, is not infallible either. If you prefer to remain within the confines of patriarchal gender ideology, you are free to do so. Thankfully, however, clarifying the conflation of patriarchal gender ideology and our sacramental theology is already underway, for the glory of God and the good of souls. As the introduction to the 1994 catechism forcefully states: “This catechism will thus contain both the new and the old (cf. Mt 13:52), because the faith is always the same yet the source of ever new light.”

  • Verse 24 makes it clear that it was Solomon who sat on “the” throne. There are many reasons why he might set up “a” throne next to him but making that person a co-regent is not a necessary conclusion.

  • I have yet to see any ‘reputable scholar’ argue for anything that could interfere with his tenure.

  • You mean it is a road embankment that also served as a foundation for the main floor of the temple? It is a wall that was contiguous with the temple and so could be considered part of it? The wall is so high, frankly, I am having trouble believing it is anything other than a wall in the main temple

  • If you want to distort the clear meaning of the words right in front of you, IANS can’t stop you.

  • Then you should be able to post it? BTW do you have a mouse in your pocket?

  • Thank you. I’m sure there are some commentators here who don’t know what the Quelle or “Q” source is. BTW, I first learned about that hypothetical document from Fr Karban.

  • Well you have moved up one step on the ladder, out of the pig stye. You are now acknowledging us a Christians. BTW, have you ever met any christian who was without carne?

  • As already discussed, I have at least if not more training in what the bible says and does not say than you do. You wouldn’t be attacking my statements if they were wrong.

  • Any other sane person would recognize my comment as the insult for which it was intended.

  • “Queen Mother” is an honorific title. The first sentence in your link documents that. That doesn’t maker her queen with all the power that would entail.

  • Why assume that I’m referring to professors. And if you have had any exposure to academics you would know that coming up with new theories and providing sound defense for those theories is a pretty good way to get tenure.

  • This isn’t e-mail. I may be responding to you but I am communicating with a larger audience.
    You said that you were neither Catholic nor Protestant. Your theology is diametrically opposed to the Orthodox. So that makes you non-christian.

    A refresher. One of the first major breaks that is still reflected in the world today is that of the Coptic Christians in 451 because of disagreements at the Council of Chalcedon. Almost 600 years later (1054) The Orthodox Catholics split over several theological issues including: the role of the bishop of rome, the “filioque,” and whether Jesus is “homoosion” or “homoiosion” with God. The Copts and the Orthodox were/are in communion and are collectively called the Orthodox Church (or Orthodox Catholic Church).

    At this time in history you have the Catholic Church (which today is represented by 23 unique rites, the largest of which is the Latin or Roman Rite) and the Orthodox Church.

    The next major split came about 500 years later with the Reformation. Protestantism can to traced to one of two dates: 1517, when Luther posted his 95 theses or in 1529 when the German Lutheran princes issued their protest against the Diet of Speyor. Protestant churches or denominations then began splitting off seemingly as quick as someone had a new idea. I’ve lost track at the current number of Protestant denominations.

    If you examine the historical and theological pedigree of your denomination, you will see, contrary to your assertion, that it falls within the Protestant branch of Christianity. You may THINK that you are an independent “christian” church or an individual unaffiliated with any particular denomination but you are fooling yourself. Your theological thinking did not evolve out of nothing. You admit to having been in the seminary which is assumed to have influenced your cognitive processes (if it didn’t what was the point in going? that’s money that could have been spent elsewhere. If you examine your theological assumptions, you will find them fitting in squarely with one of the three branches of Christianity. Your emphasis on the “solas” places you squarely in the tradition of one of the three branches of Christianity. Your theological presuppositions and assertions clearly identifies you as coming from one of the three branches of Christianity. It is of no concern to me to which flavor of this branch you best identify with or even if you claim to identify with none.

    It has been my experience that individuals adhering to your theological principles need to have things presented in black and white rather than shades of gray. They prefer to be taught what to think rather than how to think. It is so much easier to have someone tell you with absolute certainty what is right and what is wrong than it is to wrestle with the gray that is the real world.

  • You do comprehend the definition of “carnal” don’t you?

    Jer 17:5-7
    5 ¶ Thus saith the Lord, Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and withdraweth his heart from the Lord.
    6 For he shall be like the heath in the wilderness, and shall not see when any good cometh, but shall inhabit the parched places in the wilderness, in a salt land, and not inhabited.
    7 Blessed be the man that trusteth in the Lord, and whose hope the Lord

  • The bible speaks about those like you and to mark you …

    Romans 16:17
    Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

  • Yes I do:

    car·nal
    ˈkärnl/
    adjective
    relating to physical, especially sexual, needs and activities.

    The word does not refer to vile sexual behavior. Eating is a carnal activity. Remove all carnal dimensions of the human person and that person would not live long. If you might recall, Jesus became flesh. The flesh can not be that bad.

    Jeremiah provided no definition of the word in the text you cited. But what does that matter?

  • It is always wise to look in the mirror before judging others. It helps you to see the logs in your own eye.

  • Yes, of course you are “right”. as you try to think and distort on the fly.

    This is clearly the first time you have ever heard this and your confirmation bias renders it nugatory for you.

    You have no idea what you are talking about nor do you have the humility to admit this is all new for you and that you find it interesting and inspired to drill down into the subject.

    Adios.

  • So your claim was I am orthodox and you are wrong and the fact you can’t be honest and say you don’t know says a lot about you. And if you had done what I asked you you’d have known exactly which denomination I am.

    I believe this explains why you’re so confounded and refuse answer my question.

    2 Tim 3:1-9 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. 2For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, 4Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 5Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. 6For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, 7Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 8Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith. 9But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was.

  • You’d have to know what a Christian is first before you can judge that I am not one.

    1 Tim 1:8-10 8But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; 9Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

  • So then you know you speak with worldly values rather than biblical statutes and precepts.

  • Even the devil can quote scripture bob. doing so doesn’t make you a christian. Thank you for proving exactly what you are.

  • Read it again bob. I did not say that you were orthodox. I said that you were diametrically opposed to orthodox. I never claimed to know what denomination you are. I made that clear. You said that you were neither catholic nor protestant. If you are not orthodox (which you are not) the only other possibility is non christian. I care not what denomination within protestantism you were. But if you are not protestant, you are not in any protestant denomination.

    Citing scripture doesn’t prove anything. even the devil can quote scripture.

  • It appears that our friend bob is not the only person who likes to assume. This is not my first time around the block Mr. Not Spartacus. You would be surprised at what I have heard.

  • Following the resurrection “Jesus Lives” so that all who follow him are ‘with him’ and walk beside him as “an original disciple”

  • You support sexual immorality so according the bible the last sentence in Romans 1therefore you are guilty of being a carnal christian which BTW isn’t a Christian. Romans 1 :31 Which men, though they knew the Law of God, how that they which commit such things are worthy of death, yet not only do the same, but also favor them that do them. So yes the definition your foolishness.

  • But the scripture I quoted you offends your god Belial and you which is why you continue to reject it. Does the bible still burn your hands when you pick it up?

  • So even after I specifically told you I’m not a protestant here you are again repeating that lie. I also asked you to read the Trail of Blood to know I’m nothing like you but in fact I’m a bible believing, satan hating, Christ honoring BORN AGAIN CHRISTIAN something your completely void of comprehending.

    Matt 13:11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

  • If you are not a protestant, and not a catholic, and not orthodox, you are non christian. Period.

    Even satan can quote scripture.

  • I am rejecting you, not the scripture because you abuse the scriptures in the same manner the pharisees did.

  • You are changing the subject and assuming things.
    A noncarnal christian would have no flesh. Are you gnostic?
    Look again at the definition. Third time and you still don’t get it.

  • Gee and you’ve yet to quote scripture. Who knew? Why does scripture offend you? Does it prick your heart?

    1 Timothy 6:5
    Froward disputations of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth, which think that gain is godliness: from such separate thyself.

  • The bible is not anithetical to the world. Remember, Jesus became flesh (carnal) and lived among us. The world was and is good enough for G-D to make G-D’s Self present in it. He engaged in a lot of carnal activity: he ate, he drank, he exercised, he even had bowel movements. “Carnal” has a wider definition than you are attributing to it. But that is consistent with your attempt to manipulate things to fit your version of reality. It is also no big surprise that you would pick that one aspect of the definition that drags you down into the gutter. It’s no wonder that that’s all you can see–that’s all you know.

  • If you were a born again christian, you would show it in your actions. You would show it in how you treat people–all people, even those who disagree with you. You do not abide by the commands of Jesus so how can you be so deluded as to believe that you are his follower?

  • I agree because scripture offends all mockers of the Christian faith. I’m amazed it took you so long to insinuate I was like a Pharisee because it show how truly desperate you are to stop me form embarrassing you on your lack of knowledge of the bible.

    2 Corinthians 6:14
    Be not unequally yoked with the infidels: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

  • And you strive so hard to mock. I’ve been calling you a Pharisee for some time. And there is no insinuation involved. As has been proven here, my knowledge of the bible exceeds yours. You knowledge is limited to what it SAYS while I make every effort to know what it MEANS.

  • I do not need to quote scripture. Scripture was never intended to be used as a tool to beat people into submission–like the pharisees did.

  • I assume most ‘scholars’ are professors or academics of one sort of another. It must be difficult to publish without rocking the boat. Also, we don’t expect people who are vested selling Bibles to question it much. Or those paid to be priests.

  • You know what they say about assuming. The path to tenure is different for different people but one of the basic requirements is publishing work that adds something new to the body of knowledge. There is a lot of boat rocking that goes on in the process.

    You are right, people who are simply selling Bibles have no vested interest one way or another, as long as their income is consistent. But then again, Bibles are not where you are going to find ideas such as yours published. A history book would not be an appropriate place to publish a piece on organic chemistry.

    A lot of priests have no interest in scholarly activity. A lot of priest are very active scholars. The main job or ministry of some priests is scholarship and teaching.

  • I do not have the data so I do not know whether 51% or more scholars are professors. One major purpose of publishing is rocking the boat. Publications, based on empirical research, that provides a new way of looking at things is a pretty sure step toward tenure. Those not in academics are reinforced simply by the contribution they provide. Priests, provide a large contribution to the body of research.

  • Bob, mockers of the christian faith couldn’t care less what the bible says.

  • Well, if you are having difficulties recognizing where I quote scripture, maybe you don’t know your scripture very well. And no, I’m not saying that I cut and pasted and put the citations in parentheses.

  • I never said that you were like me. I thank G-D for that every day because that would mean that I was like you. If you are not protestant, catholic, or orthodox, then you are not christian. I couldn’t care less what flavor of protestantism you are.

  • It was great not seeing you post foolishness for a few days. Could you take a few more days off?

  • Bob, you don’t know anything about me beyond your own pre judge ment.

  • The reason for my relative silence these past few days is because I was spending almost every waking hour with my pastor who experienced a traumatic event in his life last Tuesday. His whole home had to be packed up on short notice. At the same time, I guided the constant flow of parishioners who came to say goodbye, to pray with us and for us. He was and is greatly loved. He had the ability to use the Word of G-D to touch peoples’ hearts, draw them close to G-D, and allow G-D to transform them into the person that S/He wanted them to be. It is such a radically different approach to G-D’s Word than individuals who use it to beat people over the head so as to conform to the type of person that they think G-D wants them to be.

    Now we begin the process of healing. There are a lot of very hurt people in our parish family and I am one of the ones tasked with facilitating that healing. That’s what Christianity is all about. That’s what reminds us that Jesus is still with us and will remain so until the end of time. (and in case you can’t recognize it, that’s a Bible quote)

  • Yes it’s to your shame you believe facts are insults.

    Proverbs 15: 28 The heart of the righteous studieth to answer: but the wicked man’s mouth babbleth evil things.

  • You prove the substance of this proverb every day.
    What you fail to understand bob is that the intent of scripture is not to “prove” anything. It is the greatest love story ever told and you use it as a battering ram. You should be ashamed of yourself.

  • Larry, given the babble that comes out of your mouth, the words “Pot, Kettle & Black” come to mind.

  • I thought I replied to this. It’s a shame bob, that you don’t seem to know what a fact is. The proverb you cite applies very well to you. What you do not seem to understand is that you can take any possible position under the sun and find a Bible verse to support it. That is a bastardization of what the Bible is yet you continue to do it. I shouldn’t expect more given your branch of the Christian family but I thought you were a person if intellect.

  • 2 Timothy 2:14 Of these things put them in remembrance, and protest before the Lord, that they strive not about words, which is to no profit, but to the perverting of the hearers.

  • try this version:
    Remind people of these things and charge them before God* to stop disputing about words. This serves no useful purpose since it harms those who listen.
    “stop disputing about words” gee bob, maybe you should listen.

    or this from the same chapter:
    Avoid foolish and ignorant debates, for you know that they breed quarrels.
    24A slave of the Lord should not quarrel, but should be gentle with everyone, able to teach, tolerant,u
    25correcting opponents with kindness.

    Why continue in these arguments when the Word of God clearly instructs you not to.

  • Titus 3:9-11
    9 But stay foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and brawlings about the Law: for they are unprofitable and vain.
    10 Reject him that is an heretic, after once or twice admonition,
    11 Knowing that he that is such, is perverted, and sinneth, being damned of his own self.
    2 Timothy 2:14 Of these things put them in remembrance, and protest before the Lord, that they strive not about words, which is to no profit, but to the perverting of the hearers.

  • Proverbs 18: 2
    2 A fool hath no delight in understanding: but that his heart may be discovered.

  • Proverbs 26:4- 5
    4 Answer not a fool according to his foolishness, lest thou also be like him.
    5 Answer a fool according to his foolishness, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

  • Proverbs 26:4- 5
    4 Answer not a fool according to his foolishness, lest thou also be like him.
    5 Answer a fool according to his foolishness, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

  • Proverbs 9:13 ¶ A foolish woman is troublesome; she is ignorant and knoweth nothing.

  • and more games.
    bob, it’s obvious that our faith traditions take a very different view of the primacy of scripture and literalism. What’s really sad is that you can not understand how there can be a viewpoint other than your own. I’m not saying “agree” with another viewpoint but simply to understand it. Throwing out random bible quotes proves that you have no real understanding of the purpose of scripture and chose to use it as a tool to control people. There was a group of people in the bible who had similar goals.
    So, unless you are capable of actually holding a conversation–that means active listening, respect for other viewpoints while disagreeing, and doing more than quote bible verses–this is goodbye. Have the last word if you wish, it only shows your pettiness.

  • It’s sad that you feel the need to troll these boards hiding being a number of different personas, changing your name whenever people start reporting you for being abusive.

  • Oh and I almost forgot your reaction is almost as original as Sticks and stones……

  • Matt 15:8-9

    8. This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
    9. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

  • bye bob
    Whoever will not receive you or listen to your words—go outside that house or town and shake the dust from your feet.
    15Amen, I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment

  • bye bob

    Whoever will not receive you or listen to your words—go outside that house or town and shake the dust from your feet.
    15Amen, I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment

  • Proverbs 9:13 ¶ A foolish woman is troublesome; she is ignorant and knoweth nothing.

  • Proverbs 14:23-24
    23 In all labor there is abundance: but the talk of the lips bringeth only want.
    24 The crown of the wise is their riches, and the folly of fools is foolishness.

    BTW it is you that favors homosexuality and I’m not surprised that verse you quoted condemns you alone.

  • Proverbs 13:16 Every wise man will work by knowledge: but a fool will spread abroad folly.

  • bye bob
    Proverbs 13:16 Every wise man will work by knowledge: but a fool will spread abroad folly.

  • bye bob

    Proverbs 14:23-24
    23 In all labor there is abundance: but the talk of the lips bringeth only want.
    24 The crown of the wise is their riches, and the folly of fools is foolishness.BTW it is you that favors homosexuality and I’m not surprised that verse you quoted condemns you

  • bye bob

    Proverbs 9:13 ¶ A foolish woman is troublesome; she is ignorant and knoweth nothing.

  • And you’re not lacking folly.

    Proverbs 17:11-12
    11 A seditious person seeketh only evil, and a cruel messenger shall be sent against him.
    12 It is better for a man to meet a bear robbed of her whelps, than a fool in his folly.

  • You’re like an angry that has to get the last word in. So how many times ill you say bye bob and then reply anyway? Just another proof of your folly.

  • It’s interesting that there has been zero mention of the written, historical, Biblical qualifications for the Pastoral Office:

    1 Tim 3 —
    “The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the HUSBAND of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach…”

    Tt 1 —
    “if anyone is above reproach, the HUSBAND of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. For an overseer, as God’s steward, must be above reproach.”

    1 Tim 2 —
    “Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I DO NOT PERMIT a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.”

    Obviously, and contextually, this applies to actual worship services & “leading” the church — the Office of Pastor. There are Biblical examples of women sharing The Gospel & God’s Word with others in other capacities. And, some of the arguments from article, as well as Biblical passages, demonstrate how women were/are given trust and many other means of serving the Body of Christ through other vocations. For that is what a Pastor is called to do: to serve Christ’s church — not to “be another Christ” — but to preach & teach the Word of Christ. We are to faithfully continue teaching & confessing that which those who personally knew Jesus taught & confessed. We do not get to define what that is (or isn’t); the Apostles already taught us through Scripture.

    If one denies the truth and Holiness of Scripture, they probably shouldn’t be a Pastor for just that reason, anyway.

ADVERTISEMENTs