Re: Re: Re: How come a woman can't never be a prist in the Catholic faith?
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I thought I clearly stated in this post that a woman can be ordained if God has called her to that position. I even gave a real life example of a an ordained, female minister of the gospel (there are many I just named one).
Then why was the Gospel of Mary stricken from the bible?
Re: Re: Re: How come a woman can't never be a prist in the Catholic faith?
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I thought I clearly stated in this post that a woman can be ordained if God has called her to that position. I even gave a real life example of a an ordained, female minister of the gospel (there are many I just named one).
Still evading my question. She's a minister, not a preist.
Re: Re: Re: Re: How come a woman can't never be a prist in the Catholic faith?
Originally posted by dani_california
Still evading my question. She's a minister, not a preist.
Dani, I don't evade other people's questions. I went out of my way to explain to you that priests have to do with the Catholics so perhaps it was a complete waste of my time responding to your post because I am not Catholic. Perhaps you should solicit a Catholic like Rocatell or JacobX for the answer that you seek.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How come a woman can't never be a prist in the Catholic faith?
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Dani, I don't evade other people's questions. I went out of my way to explain to you that priests have to do with the Catholics so perhaps it was a complete waste of my time responding to your post because I am not Catholic. Perhaps you should solicit a Catholic like Rocatell or JacobX for the answer that you seek.
Well if your not Catholic i don't see why you're defending them. I was raised Catholic and the whole system makes no sence to me. I wasn't bashing christianity (even though the bible does have a sexist point of view) just Catholics' inability to adapt to the 21st century.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How come a woman can't never be a prist in the Catholic faith?
Originally posted by dani_california
Well if your not Catholic i don't see why you're defending them. I was raised Catholic and the whole system makes no sence to me. I wasn't bashing christianity (even though the bible does have a sexist point of view) just Catholics' inability to adapt to the 21st century.
How in the world did you come to the brilliant deduction that I am defending Catholics? I am neither bashing them nor defending them. I advised you to talk to a Catholic about why there are no female priests because I am not Catholic. I do admit that I take issue with the false docrtrines that Catholic leaders espouse and teach though.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How come a woman can't never be a prist in the Catholic faith?
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
It did not meet certain criteria to be included in the canon of what is considered divinely inspired.
What is divinly inspired? One would think just being talked to by Jesus would qualify...
And to my knowledge God wasn't in communion with the chaps at the Biblical creation council - the inclusion/exclusion of gospels was decided by men - not God.
Unless you are saying God over ruled their free will and made them do the Bible the way he wanted.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How come a woman can't never be a prist in the Catholic faith?
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
What is divinly inspired? One would think just being talked to by Jesus would qualify...And to my knowledge God wasn't in communion with the chaps at the Biblical creation council - the inclusion/exclusion of gospels was decided by men - not God.
Unless you are saying God over ruled their free will and made them do the Bible the way he wanted.
I am sure that God did everything to preserve His Word and to keep the spurious scrolls from being included as sacred authority.
How did they decide which books to include in the New Testament?
There are solid reasons for trusting in today's list of New Testament books. As previously mentioned, the Gospel writers Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were close followers of Jesus. The other authors were considered trustworthy as well: James and Jude (half-brothers of Jesus, who initially did not believe in him), Peter (one of the 12 apostles), and Paul (whom Jesus made an apostle after his death and resurrection).
The church knew about these men and their association with Jesus. Moreover, what they reported was consistent with what people had heard and seen themselves regarding Jesus, and had passed on to their children. So, when other books were written and appeared hundreds of years later (e.g., the Gospel of Peter, though Peter had long since died), it wasn't difficult for the church to spot them as phonies.
Another example is the Gospel of Thomas (which Mohammed references in the Quran). The Gospel of Thomas was written around 140 A.D., long after Thomas had died. Though it bore some similarities to the New Testament's authentic Gospel of Matthew, it also contained wildly different messages. The descriptions of Jesus did not fit anything the early church knew to be true of him.
For example, throughout the Gospels, Jesus treats women with dignity. He taught women as well as men, spoke against unfair divorce laws, and first appeared to women after his resurrection, entrusting to them the message that he was alive. This respect toward women countered the culture of his day, which typically viewed women as possessions. Yet the Gospel of Thomas attests the following to Jesus: "Let Mary go away from us, because women are not worthy of life."16 And: "For every woman who makes herself male will enter into the kingdom of heaven."17
So, as books were written and circulated among the early church, it was not difficult for people to discern the forgeries. False writings countered the known teachings of Jesus and the Old Testament, and often contained historical and geographical errors.18
At some point an official list of New Testament books became necessary: 1) Christians were being martyred and books were being destroyed; 2) in translating the books into Syriac and Old Latin, a listing of authoritative books was important; 3) false books and false teachings were always challenging the church; and 4) God may likely have been moving the church to formulate an official list. In A.D. 367, Athanasius formerly listed the 27 New Testament books (the same list that we have today). Soon after, Jerome and Augustine circulated this same list.
Originally posted by dani_california
Well if your not Catholic i don't see why you're defending them. I was raised Catholic and the whole system makes no sence to me. I wasn't bashing christianity (even though the bible does have a sexist point of view) just Catholics' inability to adapt to the 21st century.
Do you have to be certain religion in order to ''defend'' or explain that religion?
Well if your not Catholic i don't see why you're defending them. I was raised Catholic and the whole system makes no sence to me. I wasn't bashing christianity (even though the bible does have a sexist point of view) just Catholics' inability to adapt to the 21st century.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Do you have to be certain religion in order to ''defend'' or explain that religion?
Indeed.
It is the old "if your not from this nation/religion/political party/etc you shouldn't have a right to comment, which is absurd. People can be equally educated, informed and the like about something and not be a part of it, and likewise if it is being attacked/defended for the wrong reasons it is perfectly alright to respond appropriately.
I don't consider myself Catholic, and by your definition d.c would have no reason to defend them - yet when I see a post attacking them in a way that I know is incorrect (as JIA will attest) then I will contribute in their defence.