If I would have millions of dollar, I would give as price; for the person who finds such a statement of Jesus.
Does the bible prohibit a woman from being a "pastor"?
- Thread starter Kidron
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Hi neophyte,
We must remember that apart from prophesy which is as yet unfulfilled, the Bible is an historical record. As I read it, I find no prohibition upon a woman obeying the calling of God on her life.
One thing we have not discussed, is the Bible's emphasis on a married couple being 'one flesh'. Just in passing, I would like to point out for readers who don't know this, that there was no such thing as a church wedding until it was invented by the Roman Catholic Church at the end of the sixteenth century by the Council of Trent. Before that, it was an arrangement between families which followed cultural patterns. For Israelites in the days of polygamy, there was a contract, an espousal period before consummation, and prayers and celebrations which accompanied the various stages. I am unclear as to how this worked if a woman had been married before.
Returning to the matter of one flesh, I am sure that a widow who preferred to serve the Lord full time - especially if her husband had left her well-provided economically - was most acceptable to the apostles. 1 Corinthians 7 covers this.
There is also the matter of those whose husbands were martyred, perhaps needing to move on for their own personal safety. (Jesus had told the disciples to flee when Jerusalem was under attack. In other words, fleeing is not a sin.) I am sure there would be some women who were given a place of respect even by the apostles, if they had been goldy, submitted to their own husbands, and the more so if they had served the church through hospitality due to the calling upon their late husband's life. These women were on fire for God. Some died as martyrs themselves. If you were a woman seeking God when your life was in danger every second, you would be spreading the gospel while you could.
If your complaint is that they were 'called' 'apostles' if God sent them specifically, then that's up to you, but as mjrheath keeps saying, who are we to tell God what He can and cannot do with His own? This is God's own argument in scripture, when He sends the prophet Jeremiah to the potter's house, to observe how he takes the same piece of clay and makes it into something new. This is a message to us too. In fact, it's the greatest warning against 'tradition'.
About your use of the word 'church', I note you see it as an institution rather than the kind of temple God is building.
Slowly, all through the universe, that temple of God is
being built. Wherever, in any world, a soul, by free-willed
obedience, catches the fire of God's likeness, it is set into
the growing walls, a living stone. When, in your hard fight,
in your tiresome drudgery, or in your terrible temptation, you
catch the purpose of your being and give yourself to God, and
so give Him the chance to give Himself to you, your life -- a
living stone -- is taken up and set into that growing wall.
Wherever souls are being tried and ripened, in whatever
commonplace and homely ways, there God is hewing out the
pillars for His temple. Oh, if the stone can only have some
vision of the temple of which it is to be a part forever, what
patience must fill it as it feels the blows of the hammer, and
knows that success for it is simply to let itself be wrought
into what shape the Master wills.
Phillips Brooks (1835-1893), The Law of Growth [1902]
If you agree with this:
Ephesians 1:18 - 22 The eyes of your understanding being enlightened;
that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance
in the saints, [all believers] and what [is] the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward
who believe, according to the working of his mighty power, which he wrought in Christ,
when he raised him from the dead, and set [him] at his own right hand in the heavenly [places],
Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named,
not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: and hath put all under his feet,
and gave him [to be] the head over all to the church, which is his body,
the fulness of him that filleth all in all.
Then you should agree with this:
Ephesians 2:18 - 22 For through him we both [Jews and Gentiles] have access by one Spirit to the Father.
Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, [all believers]
and of the household of God; and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets,
Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner [stone]; in whom all the building fitly framed
together grows to an holy temple in the Lord: in whom ye also are builded together
for an habitation of God through the Spirit.
and this:
1 Peter 2:3 - 8If so be ye have tasted that the Lord [is] gracious. To whom coming,
[as to] a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, [and] precious,
ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood,
to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone,
elect, precious: and he that believes on him shall not be confounded. To you therefore which
believe [he is] precious: but to them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed,
the same is made the head of the corner, and a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence,
[even to them] which stumble at the word...'
Do you stumble at the word? There (above) are Peter and Paul in ageement about who is the Rock on which the Church of Jesus Christ down the centuries is being built, and you are in disagreement with at least one of them. And they are in agreement with the prophets, which is why both Peter and Paul mention the prophets, often.
In so being (in disagreement), you are also in disagreement with God who gave Isaiah this word:
Isaiah 28:16 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone,
a tried stone, a precious corner [stone], a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.
And with Moses who also spoke about the Rock:
Deuteronomy 32:1 Give ear, O ye heavens, and I will speak;
and hear, O earth, the words of my mouth. 2 My doctrine shall drop as the rain,
my speech shall distil as the dew, as the small rain upon the tender herb, and as the showers upon the grass:
3 Because I will publish the name of the LORD: ascribe ye greatness to our God.
4 [He is] the Rock, his work [is] perfect: for all his ways [are] judgment:
a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right [is] he.
We must remember that apart from prophesy which is as yet unfulfilled, the Bible is an historical record. As I read it, I find no prohibition upon a woman obeying the calling of God on her life.
One thing we have not discussed, is the Bible's emphasis on a married couple being 'one flesh'. Just in passing, I would like to point out for readers who don't know this, that there was no such thing as a church wedding until it was invented by the Roman Catholic Church at the end of the sixteenth century by the Council of Trent. Before that, it was an arrangement between families which followed cultural patterns. For Israelites in the days of polygamy, there was a contract, an espousal period before consummation, and prayers and celebrations which accompanied the various stages. I am unclear as to how this worked if a woman had been married before.
Returning to the matter of one flesh, I am sure that a widow who preferred to serve the Lord full time - especially if her husband had left her well-provided economically - was most acceptable to the apostles. 1 Corinthians 7 covers this.
There is also the matter of those whose husbands were martyred, perhaps needing to move on for their own personal safety. (Jesus had told the disciples to flee when Jerusalem was under attack. In other words, fleeing is not a sin.) I am sure there would be some women who were given a place of respect even by the apostles, if they had been goldy, submitted to their own husbands, and the more so if they had served the church through hospitality due to the calling upon their late husband's life. These women were on fire for God. Some died as martyrs themselves. If you were a woman seeking God when your life was in danger every second, you would be spreading the gospel while you could.
If your complaint is that they were 'called' 'apostles' if God sent them specifically, then that's up to you, but as mjrheath keeps saying, who are we to tell God what He can and cannot do with His own? This is God's own argument in scripture, when He sends the prophet Jeremiah to the potter's house, to observe how he takes the same piece of clay and makes it into something new. This is a message to us too. In fact, it's the greatest warning against 'tradition'.
About your use of the word 'church', I note you see it as an institution rather than the kind of temple God is building.
Slowly, all through the universe, that temple of God is
being built. Wherever, in any world, a soul, by free-willed
obedience, catches the fire of God's likeness, it is set into
the growing walls, a living stone. When, in your hard fight,
in your tiresome drudgery, or in your terrible temptation, you
catch the purpose of your being and give yourself to God, and
so give Him the chance to give Himself to you, your life -- a
living stone -- is taken up and set into that growing wall.
Wherever souls are being tried and ripened, in whatever
commonplace and homely ways, there God is hewing out the
pillars for His temple. Oh, if the stone can only have some
vision of the temple of which it is to be a part forever, what
patience must fill it as it feels the blows of the hammer, and
knows that success for it is simply to let itself be wrought
into what shape the Master wills.
Phillips Brooks (1835-1893), The Law of Growth [1902]
If you agree with this:
Ephesians 1:18 - 22 The eyes of your understanding being enlightened;
that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance
in the saints, [all believers] and what [is] the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward
who believe, according to the working of his mighty power, which he wrought in Christ,
when he raised him from the dead, and set [him] at his own right hand in the heavenly [places],
Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named,
not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: and hath put all under his feet,
and gave him [to be] the head over all to the church, which is his body,
the fulness of him that filleth all in all.
Then you should agree with this:
Ephesians 2:18 - 22 For through him we both [Jews and Gentiles] have access by one Spirit to the Father.
Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, [all believers]
and of the household of God; and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets,
Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner [stone]; in whom all the building fitly framed
together grows to an holy temple in the Lord: in whom ye also are builded together
for an habitation of God through the Spirit.
and this:
1 Peter 2:3 - 8If so be ye have tasted that the Lord [is] gracious. To whom coming,
[as to] a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, [and] precious,
ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood,
to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone,
elect, precious: and he that believes on him shall not be confounded. To you therefore which
believe [he is] precious: but to them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed,
the same is made the head of the corner, and a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence,
[even to them] which stumble at the word...'
Do you stumble at the word? There (above) are Peter and Paul in ageement about who is the Rock on which the Church of Jesus Christ down the centuries is being built, and you are in disagreement with at least one of them. And they are in agreement with the prophets, which is why both Peter and Paul mention the prophets, often.
In so being (in disagreement), you are also in disagreement with God who gave Isaiah this word:
Isaiah 28:16 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone,
a tried stone, a precious corner [stone], a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.
And with Moses who also spoke about the Rock:
Deuteronomy 32:1 Give ear, O ye heavens, and I will speak;
and hear, O earth, the words of my mouth. 2 My doctrine shall drop as the rain,
my speech shall distil as the dew, as the small rain upon the tender herb, and as the showers upon the grass:
3 Because I will publish the name of the LORD: ascribe ye greatness to our God.
4 [He is] the Rock, his work [is] perfect: for all his ways [are] judgment:
a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right [is] he.
Pastor ? i see this as being something like a deacon.
Why is it that people are wanting to be at the top, for some reason, why ?
A Woman has a place and it's not at the top, there is many reasons for this, but one is they are not Men and can't be men and why would they want to be. as nowadays due to the influence of Satan turning everything up side down ? it's a creepy and sick perverted world now pushing all this equality dribble to far.
A great many woman have become Saints and influenced exceeding and are a great credit to there calling, but to try to push into this territory does them no favors. and i am not saying that the man has a superior position but both have their own strengths and weaknesses and should bide by the facts, as no man will make a great woman or woman a great man as this is just straight out hog wash.
Why is it that people are wanting to be at the top, for some reason, why ?
A Woman has a place and it's not at the top, there is many reasons for this, but one is they are not Men and can't be men and why would they want to be. as nowadays due to the influence of Satan turning everything up side down ? it's a creepy and sick perverted world now pushing all this equality dribble to far.
A great many woman have become Saints and influenced exceeding and are a great credit to there calling, but to try to push into this territory does them no favors. and i am not saying that the man has a superior position but both have their own strengths and weaknesses and should bide by the facts, as no man will make a great woman or woman a great man as this is just straight out hog wash.
revturmoil
New Member
Mr. R...
Can't say that I agree with you. Maybe you should read the book of Esther! Well at least chapter 1-2!
Are these verse meaningless to you?
1 Corinthians 16:19 ??¶The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house.
Romans 16:3-6 ??Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus: Who have for my life laid down their own necks: unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles. Likewise greet the church that is in their house. Salute my wellbeloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia unto Christ. Greet Mary, who bestowed much labour on us.
Acts 16:14-15 ??And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul. And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.
Philippians 4:2-3 I beseech Euodias, and beseech Syntyche, that they be of the same mind in the Lord.And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life.
Can't say that I agree with you. Maybe you should read the book of Esther! Well at least chapter 1-2!
Are these verse meaningless to you?
1 Corinthians 16:19 ??¶The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house.
Romans 16:3-6 ??Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus: Who have for my life laid down their own necks: unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles. Likewise greet the church that is in their house. Salute my wellbeloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia unto Christ. Greet Mary, who bestowed much labour on us.
Acts 16:14-15 ??And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul. And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.
Philippians 4:2-3 I beseech Euodias, and beseech Syntyche, that they be of the same mind in the Lord.And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life.
That has noting to do with it at all.
The OT is the blue print of the NT.
It's Mary the blessed we can look to, for she is the Queen of Heaven. and she did not take on the role of the Son.
Quote dragonfly' timestamp='1342265444' post='156441'
One thing we have not discussed, is the Bible's emphasis on a married couple being 'one flesh'. Just in passing, I would like to point out for readers who don't know this, that there was no such thing as a church wedding until it was invented by the Roman Catholic Church at the end of the sixteenth century by the Council of Trent. Before that, it was an arrangement between families which followed cultural patterns. For Israelites in the days of polygamy, there was a contract, an espousal period before consummation, and prayers and celebrations which accompanied the various stages. I am unclear as to how this worked if a woman had been married before.
A very interesting objection of you. Many thanks. It shows that God was not the first matchmaker, and that the marriage is an invention of the Middle Ages. Therefore can also nobody who is a Christian claim; that homosexuals might not get married; because God from the beginning has married man and woman to each other.
One thing we have not discussed, is the Bible's emphasis on a married couple being 'one flesh'. Just in passing, I would like to point out for readers who don't know this, that there was no such thing as a church wedding until it was invented by the Roman Catholic Church at the end of the sixteenth century by the Council of Trent. Before that, it was an arrangement between families which followed cultural patterns. For Israelites in the days of polygamy, there was a contract, an espousal period before consummation, and prayers and celebrations which accompanied the various stages. I am unclear as to how this worked if a woman had been married before.
A very interesting objection of you. Many thanks. It shows that God was not the first matchmaker, and that the marriage is an invention of the Middle Ages. Therefore can also nobody who is a Christian claim; that homosexuals might not get married; because God from the beginning has married man and woman to each other.
Hello Winnetou,
I saw your post in the other thread, and Rach's answer to you, and I agree with her, that before marriage ceremonies were invented, Adam was looking for a partner while he was naming the animals, and later, was given a help meet for him, by God. This, male with female, has been the predominant pattern ever since; it is what God designed originally - that is, before the Fall - and it is what God desires from us all, unless He calls us to be single. If the workings of sin in us, and against us by others, have turned us from these instincts, God is well able to heal, to restore, and to recreate wholeness.
I saw your post in the other thread, and Rach's answer to you, and I agree with her, that before marriage ceremonies were invented, Adam was looking for a partner while he was naming the animals, and later, was given a help meet for him, by God. This, male with female, has been the predominant pattern ever since; it is what God designed originally - that is, before the Fall - and it is what God desires from us all, unless He calls us to be single. If the workings of sin in us, and against us by others, have turned us from these instincts, God is well able to heal, to restore, and to recreate wholeness.
Winnetou,
Your arguments so far have indicated you have already been listening to Artemis than Christ. Thats what we have been trying to tell you.
Is your name Job?
Are you going to use Job and the " satanic thorn" that Paul had as your proof that God is sending us Cancer and Blindness and Blood Disease?
Let me ask you a Question.
If the Devil is against you, and he is against you according to your BIBLE, and now according to the theological context of your Question, God is also against you,... then according to your theology of "everyone is against me" , id say you better hide.
Maybe under your bed is a good place?
Listen, there is a right way to suffer.
Ive a Thread about this.
Have you read it?
As for me, I'll serve a God who HEALS, who DELIVERS, and whose purpose in saving me or anyone is to USE US for his GLORY according to his will in the lives of the hurting , the poor, and the Lost.
God is not in the destruction business, he is in the restoration business.
K
A better question is to ask you to find a verse in the New Testament that authorizes a woman to be a "pastor" or a "bishop".
Good luck.
Now how about the part of this verse..1 Tim 3:2....."must be the husband of one wife".
Are you wondering about this verse?
What Paul is doing here is taking it for granted that its obvious that any reader is not going to be looking for a "woman" in the pulpit.
This is why he didnt say......"the PERSON" who is desiring the office of a Pastor/Bishop must only be married once".
Paul knew he was speaking clearly about a MALE ONLY position, but of course in these recent politically correct watered down bible version days,
you will find those who think women, gays, unbeliever, or anything and everything can and should be a "pastor".
K
If Mary is the "Queen of Heaven" then Handy is the King of Utopia.
If Mary is the "Queen of Heaven", then Dragonfly is the Pontiff of Translantica.
K
DFly.
let me give you (and others) some advanced revelation that you will enjoy.
how about 2?
#1.
Romans 7:3. "[background=rgb(249, 253, 255)]So then, if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress."[/background]
[background=rgb(249, 253, 255)]In legalistic Pentecostal/Assembly of God circles there is this teaching that says..........."if you were ever married, and you are divorced, then you better stay divorced, because if you remarry you are living in adultery and will die and go to hell...[/background]
[background=rgb(249, 253, 255)]Ever heard that nonsense?[/background]
[background=rgb(249, 253, 255)]Lots of people, believe this ^^^^^^^^^^^^^.[/background]
[background=rgb(249, 253, 255)]Now, they use Romans 7:3 to promote their twisted idea of "remarriage " as some sort of unpardonable sin.[/background]
[background=rgb(249, 253, 255)]But look now at the verse and behold what you have never seen.[/background]
[background=rgb(249, 253, 255)]"[/background][background=rgb(249, 253, 255)]So then, if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress." [/background]
[background=rgb(249, 253, 255)]Notice she marries another while.....what?...................she MARRIES ANOTHER WHILE WHO IS ALIVE.?????????[/background]
[background=rgb(249, 253, 255)]Her "[/background]HUSBAND".
So do you see it?
This is a verse that is showing you that this woman has remarried while she still has a HUSBAND.
How many does she have now..?
Hello ="ADULTERY." = 2 what?
If you have a "husband", and you remarry......= 2 HUSBANDS ..........=Hello Romans 7:3
Now why does your pastor not know this? ^_^
And now for another...
Ready???
OK, hang on and stay with it.............
What is "MARRIAGE?"
Is it a wedding certificate of "marriage?\
Is it a day when your family and friends throw rice in your hair as your parents are trying to figure out how they are going pay for your "wedding"?
Hahahahah , not quite.
Now, think about this..
God's idea of Marriage is when........... "two become one flesh".
understand?
And how does that happen?]
That is the joining of 2 bodies during .sexual union..during intercourse.....obviously.
And this is why the bible strongly warns use not to >join ourselves< to someone else sexually.
This is why the bible tells you that for the cause of "fornication" you can divorce.
And the reason is......."fornication" is the joining of 2 .......= becoming "one flesh", and THIS is marriage.
So, when a person is married and later commits the "joining of one flesh to another",(fornication) they have done what?
They have voided out their "oneness" with the first, and joined another as "one".
OH YES...
So isnt it interesting that a person can be "legally married" according to the state, yet joined to another by the sex act which nullifies the first marriage...... as "fornication" is the single/specific reason the bible tells you that you can divorce, and that is because you have annulled the original "oneness" by joining your body to another..
Dont believe it?
Look.. and see.....
When a man and a woman decide to get married, they are both supposed to be "virgins".
Thats how God set it up.
So, the woman has a sealed "womb" that the man penetrates on their "wedding night", and when this happens you have BLOOD spilled.
This is the blood covenant of Marriage that has occurred between the 2 bodies that JOINED as ONE FLESH.
This is a sacred blood covenant between the 2, its a marriage covenant of blood, and the only way to break a blood covenant
is to annul it with another covenant...........and that would be "fornication", which is the NEW JOINING of one flesh to another
as "ONE".
See, every covenant that God establishes, that he honors, is established by BLOOD..
Including the New Testament which is the annulling of the old covenant of "law" by the Blood of Jesus which creates a "new covenant" of mercy and Grace.
And so it is with "marriage".
A woman sheds blood on her wedding night, THEIR consummation night , which is the legal blood covenant creating "ONE FLESH" which she has become with her husband.
They are "joined" through this blood covenant as "one flesh", = marriage<.
And later IF ither of them fornicate one single time, then they have consummated with another,..they have established a new "ONE FLESH" with another, and have annulled the original marriage covenant.
K
..
The Lord called certain men to a special priestly ministry (Exod. 19: 22). In the New Covenant, even though Christians are a kingdom of priests (1 Pet. 2:9), Jesus calls certain men to a special priestly ministry (Rom. 15:15–16). If this was good enough for Jesus, then it's good enough for me, and also should be good enough for you.
Hummm.
well, Paul is describing his role as the >Apostle< to the Gentiles....(Romans 11:13)
So are you saying that this proves that women are excluded from the role of "pastor"?
Not quite sure what you are trying to connect....
K
All those verses say only priest, not one priestess ever mentioned.
The Church does not have the authority to ordain women. Jesus formed a male Apostolic Church with it's Jesus -given Authority to "bind and loose", all decisions along with all Church Teachings came from Jesus only to His authorative male apostles/successors, [ Luke 10:16 ]. The Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women.
Some of the reasons cited include:
- The example recorded in the Sacred Scriptures of Christ choosing his apostles only from among men
- The constant practice of the Church, which has imitated Christ in choosing only men
- The Church’s living teaching authority has consistently held that the exclusion of women from the priesthood is in accordance with God’s plan for his Church.
- The apostles themselves only ordained other male priests, bishops , examples -Paul, Barnabas, Timothy, Titus and Matthias [ Acts 13:3, 14:22, 1:24-26 and Titus 1:5 ]
...............
the Pope, is a man made invention, a cultish dictatorship.
The Pope as the "head" of anything, is not biblical, scriptural, or God designed.
It is a lie.
I suggest that you burn your pics of the Pope.
"Mary"< is not the "queen of Heaven".
She did not die a "perpetual virgin"
She did not ascend to heaven as Jesus did.
She is not equal to Jesus, and she has no authority to forgive sins, nor does the bible instruct anyone to pray to "Mary".
I suggest that you throw away all your beads.
Finally,
The Catholic church denies the teaching of Jesus, which came through Paul, regarding salvation being by "faith alone".
That is to say the Catholic Doctrine regarding Salvation, is according to Paul a "doctrine of devils" and is to be considered anti-Cross, anti-God, and anti-Christ.
K
Why do people attack Christ mother like so. and why do they attack a woman's true rightful position God gave them.
The priesthood is as foreign to women as motherhood is to men.
It's Satan work destroying a womans dignity.
The priesthood is as foreign to women as motherhood is to men.
It's Satan work destroying a womans dignity.
Hi Kidron,
You have added to what I said considerably, in that I was spefically referring to the era before Luther. And I know it was off the rails by Luther's time or neither he nor Erasmus would have made a stand against it. But that is not the point I was making in response to another's post.
Secondly, 'England' did not join Rome as a whole, and when it happened in the 8th or 9th century AD, it was with reluctance, as I also pointed out, for political rather than spiritual reasons. There were still many groups of Christians in England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland, who had never been under Rome, nor did they submit to Rome after the Synod of Whitby.
If you think how long 500 years seems to us now, that's how long it always was.
As for the dark ages, don't forget the whole world lies in wickeness. It's not all the Church of Rome's fault.
;)
You have added to what I said considerably, in that I was spefically referring to the era before Luther. And I know it was off the rails by Luther's time or neither he nor Erasmus would have made a stand against it. But that is not the point I was making in response to another's post.
Secondly, 'England' did not join Rome as a whole, and when it happened in the 8th or 9th century AD, it was with reluctance, as I also pointed out, for political rather than spiritual reasons. There were still many groups of Christians in England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland, who had never been under Rome, nor did they submit to Rome after the Synod of Whitby.
If you think how long 500 years seems to us now, that's how long it always was.
As for the dark ages, don't forget the whole world lies in wickeness. It's not all the Church of Rome's fault.
;)
Quote
This is the church that created the dark ages.
This is the church that 500 years ago had a "western pope" and an "eastern pope" (2 popes) who were trying to kill each other.
This is the church that "up until Luther" was in bed with the King of England.
This is the church that forbid its "members" to read their bible until 1961.
This is the church whose "bible" took out one of the 10 commandments regarding "graven images".
This is the church that has placed Mary as a mediator of Salvation equal to Jesus The Christ.
This is a church that does not allow marriage for its ministers.
This is the church that denies that salvation is by Faith alone.
This is the church that teaches that water baptism into ITS Membership is the operation of redemption.
And this is the church that you think has the answers?
>wow<
WOW, well I guess WOW, Wow what a bunch of lies. If the above was true I wouldn't be Catholic, I once left the Catholic Church because of being duped by such rubbish, but soon returned after finding out that the biggest enemy against the Catholic Church is the ignorance and lies spread by anti-Catholics as you.
I've answered only a couple of your ridiculous lies, waste of my time to even try with you dyed-in-the-wool anti-Catholics.-
1.-This is the church that created the dark ages.
In the fifteenth century, Spain was engaged with the Muslims in the Reconquista of the Iberian peninsula. The two traditional kingdoms of Aragon and Castile, united through the marriage of Ferdinand and Isabella, finally conquered the Muslim region of Granada in 1492. In the kingdom of Castile, anti-converso sentiment and anti-Semitism had risen dramatically during the nationalistic fervor of the Reconquista. The conversos in many ways were viewed as worse than the Jews because they were "backsliders" who had access to privilege and position. A new anti-Semitism was on the rise in Spain as it was forging a national identity and unity. An inquisition was deemed necessary to root out the "false" conversos.
In 1478, Frederick and Isabella requested a papal bull establishing an inquisition. It was granted, and by 1482 the inquisition had been placed under the Dominican Friar Tomas de Torquemada.
Why did the monarchs want an inquisition? Ostensibly, the reason was investigation of the allegations against the conversos as having secretly returned to the Jewish faith. They also wanted to assure unity of faith throughout the peninsula. But there was also a burning desire—not necessarily felt by the monarchs, but certainly shared by the enemies of conversos—to confiscate converso wealth, and to kick them out of public life so that the "old Christian" families could take their place.
But even at this early point in the history of the Spanish Inquisition, the papacy was having second thoughts. Pope Sixtus IV (1471-1484) complained about the activities of the inquisition in Aragon and its treatment of the conversos. But, as throughout much of Europe, the papacy had lost much control over the actions of local inquisitions. Pope Innocent VIII (1484-1492) complained fruitlessly as well. The inquisition in Spain was controlled by Spanish authorities, not the authority of the papacy.
In March 1492 Ferdinand and Isabella ordered the expulsion—or conversion—of the remaining Jews in Spain. Indeed, the hope on their part was conversion. Most evidence indicates that their motivation was religious. But whatever their motivation, the results were twofold. First, many Jews fled. Second, a large number converted—which naturally aggravated the popular picture of "secret Jews" within the Christian community of Spain.
As a result, through 1530 the primary activity of the Spanish Inquisition was aimed at pursuing alleged conversos. Records of the Spanish Inquisition show that virtually the only "heresy" prosecuted was the alleged secret practice of the Jewish faith. Some two thousand people from the beginning of the Spanish Inquisition through 1530 were convicted conversos. Many of these had already fled; they were burned in effigy.
2-This is the church that 500 years ago had a "western pope" and an "eastern pope" (2 popes) who were trying to kill each other.
Your facts are wrong. There never were three popes at once—and never two at once either. But there were times when there were two claimants to the office, and once, in the 14th century, there were three claimants.
The question then is: Who was the real pope? No one at the time thought there could be more than one.
Consider an analogy from recent American politics. In a close election, one might ask: Who is the real president? Even if the answer remained unclear for a while, we’d all know there can be only one president at a time, even if more than one proclaimed himself the victor.
Incidentally, these days the college of cardinals stays locked up together until any ballot disputes are resolved. Not a bad idea, that.
3-This is the church that "up until Luther" was in bed with the King of England.
please explain this one, I can hardly wait to read your explanation, or your historical expertise.
This is the church that created the dark ages.
This is the church that 500 years ago had a "western pope" and an "eastern pope" (2 popes) who were trying to kill each other.
This is the church that "up until Luther" was in bed with the King of England.
This is the church that forbid its "members" to read their bible until 1961.
This is the church whose "bible" took out one of the 10 commandments regarding "graven images".
This is the church that has placed Mary as a mediator of Salvation equal to Jesus The Christ.
This is a church that does not allow marriage for its ministers.
This is the church that denies that salvation is by Faith alone.
This is the church that teaches that water baptism into ITS Membership is the operation of redemption.
And this is the church that you think has the answers?
>wow<
WOW, well I guess WOW, Wow what a bunch of lies. If the above was true I wouldn't be Catholic, I once left the Catholic Church because of being duped by such rubbish, but soon returned after finding out that the biggest enemy against the Catholic Church is the ignorance and lies spread by anti-Catholics as you.
I've answered only a couple of your ridiculous lies, waste of my time to even try with you dyed-in-the-wool anti-Catholics.-
1.-This is the church that created the dark ages.
In the fifteenth century, Spain was engaged with the Muslims in the Reconquista of the Iberian peninsula. The two traditional kingdoms of Aragon and Castile, united through the marriage of Ferdinand and Isabella, finally conquered the Muslim region of Granada in 1492. In the kingdom of Castile, anti-converso sentiment and anti-Semitism had risen dramatically during the nationalistic fervor of the Reconquista. The conversos in many ways were viewed as worse than the Jews because they were "backsliders" who had access to privilege and position. A new anti-Semitism was on the rise in Spain as it was forging a national identity and unity. An inquisition was deemed necessary to root out the "false" conversos.
In 1478, Frederick and Isabella requested a papal bull establishing an inquisition. It was granted, and by 1482 the inquisition had been placed under the Dominican Friar Tomas de Torquemada.
Why did the monarchs want an inquisition? Ostensibly, the reason was investigation of the allegations against the conversos as having secretly returned to the Jewish faith. They also wanted to assure unity of faith throughout the peninsula. But there was also a burning desire—not necessarily felt by the monarchs, but certainly shared by the enemies of conversos—to confiscate converso wealth, and to kick them out of public life so that the "old Christian" families could take their place.
But even at this early point in the history of the Spanish Inquisition, the papacy was having second thoughts. Pope Sixtus IV (1471-1484) complained about the activities of the inquisition in Aragon and its treatment of the conversos. But, as throughout much of Europe, the papacy had lost much control over the actions of local inquisitions. Pope Innocent VIII (1484-1492) complained fruitlessly as well. The inquisition in Spain was controlled by Spanish authorities, not the authority of the papacy.
In March 1492 Ferdinand and Isabella ordered the expulsion—or conversion—of the remaining Jews in Spain. Indeed, the hope on their part was conversion. Most evidence indicates that their motivation was religious. But whatever their motivation, the results were twofold. First, many Jews fled. Second, a large number converted—which naturally aggravated the popular picture of "secret Jews" within the Christian community of Spain.
As a result, through 1530 the primary activity of the Spanish Inquisition was aimed at pursuing alleged conversos. Records of the Spanish Inquisition show that virtually the only "heresy" prosecuted was the alleged secret practice of the Jewish faith. Some two thousand people from the beginning of the Spanish Inquisition through 1530 were convicted conversos. Many of these had already fled; they were burned in effigy.
2-This is the church that 500 years ago had a "western pope" and an "eastern pope" (2 popes) who were trying to kill each other.
Your facts are wrong. There never were three popes at once—and never two at once either. But there were times when there were two claimants to the office, and once, in the 14th century, there were three claimants.
The question then is: Who was the real pope? No one at the time thought there could be more than one.
Consider an analogy from recent American politics. In a close election, one might ask: Who is the real president? Even if the answer remained unclear for a while, we’d all know there can be only one president at a time, even if more than one proclaimed himself the victor.
Incidentally, these days the college of cardinals stays locked up together until any ballot disputes are resolved. Not a bad idea, that.
3-This is the church that "up until Luther" was in bed with the King of England.
please explain this one, I can hardly wait to read your explanation, or your historical expertise.
...................Quote
WOW, well I guess WOW, Wow what a bunch of lies. If the above was true I wouldn't be Catholic, I once left the Catholic Church because of being duped by such rubbish, but soon returned after finding out that the biggest enemy against the Catholic Church is the ignorance and lies spread by anti-Catholics as you.
The fact is, every thing i said is factual Catholic doctrine or history.. and the reason you doubt it is because you are too lazy and too deceived to go and CHECK IT OUT.
This is the church that created the dark ages.
This is the church that 500 years ago had a "western pope" and an "eastern pope" (2 popes) who were trying to kill each other.
This is the church that "up until Luther" was in bed with the King of England.
This is the church that forbid its "members" to read their bible until 1961.
This is the church whose "bible" took out one of the 10 commandments regarding "graven images".
This is the church that has placed Mary as a mediator of Salvation equal to Jesus The Christ.
This is a church that does not allow marriage for its ministers.
This is the church that denies that salvation is by Faith alone.
I've answered only a couple of your ridiculous lies, waste of my time to even try with you dyed-in-the-wool anti-Catholics.-
The reason that you cant deny the "virginity" of Mary, or that Mary is the co-author of Salvation or that the Catholic Church Doctrine is absolutely that "faith alone as the justification for salvation" is NOT the way to be saved.
The reason you cant refute this is because its TRUE
Now you can lie, but if you do that, i'll get your Catholic doctrine from the Council Of Trent 1&2 or from the 2nd Vatican council and i'll post it here.
So, you want to go there?
I can do it in a heartbeat, fella.
Now, You wrote some nonsense about 14-15th century Catholicism,
Neophyte, the dark ages started about the 4th century and continued till the time of Martin Luther.
The Catholic church was continually burning people who believed that salvation is by faith alone.
Ever heard of the Bastille in France?
This was a dungeon often borrowed by the Catholic Church to imprison and kill Christians, who were Catholic, who agreed with "faith alone as the justification of a soul"
Have you ever read anything by Madame Jeanne Guyon
She was a catholic who God called to minister..... and the church, your Catholic Church, because she taught "grace thought faith, salvation by faith alone"....she was put in the Bastille by the Catholic church and tortured..
She is ONE OF MANY.
You should read her book, and do a study, and come to the truth about your "church", because you are a typically deceived Catholic with an attitude problem.
Your churche's bible removed one of the 10 commandments regarding "graven images".
GO LOOK.
Dont just sit there and remain stupid.
You pray to Mary.
You want me to recite the rosary that you use?
After the Rosary:
- Make the Sign of the Cross and say the "Apostles' Creed."
- Say the "Our Father."
- Say three "Hail Marys."
- Say the "Glory be to the Father."
- Announce the First Mystery; then say the "Our Father."
- Say ten "Hail Marys," while meditating on the Mystery.
- Say the "Glory be to the Father."
- Announce the Second Mystery; then say the "Our Father."Repeat 6 and 7 and continue with Third, Fourth and Fifth Mysteries in the same manner.
After the Rosary:
Hail Holy QUEEN, Mother of Mercy, our LIFE, our sweetness and our HOPE......To THEE do we cry, poor banished children of Eve, to THEE do we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping in this valley of tears.....Turn then most gracious ADVOCATE, thine eyes of mercy toward us/... Pray for us, O Holy Mother of God. That we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.
So, Neophyte.... dont sit there and lie.
I know what you are, what you do, and how you do it, and why.
Therefore, you might fool some of these other believers with your Catholic nonsense, but dont try it on me or i'll get your Catholic Doctrine teachings from your Catholic literature and i'll cut and past it ...
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[background=transparent]
Our Mother of Perpetual Help, a title that reflects Catholic belief in the intercessory role of Mary.[sup][1][/sup]The title "Mediatrix" is used in Roman Catholic Mariology to refer to the intercessory role of the Blessed Virgin Mar as a MEDIATOR IN THE SALVIFIC REDEMPTION by Jesus Christ and that her son bestows graces >through her.<
So, what you need to do Neophyte, is do some READING regarding your actual Church's theology about "justification by faith" or "mary the perpetual virgin", etc.[/background]And here is more Catholic heresy while we are on it...Your cult teaches that a Catholic Priest has the miraculous power to turn a wafer and wine into the literal blood and body of Christ, at communion.This complete deceit is called "Transubstantiation" and is just one more hocus pocus playtime theater that is used to deceive people like you.And while we are at it, why dont you illuminate the curious Christians here regarding the doctrine of "purgatory", or that prayers for the dead can be offered.
Go ahead and tell us all about "mortal sins" and "venial sins", so that we can enjoy the teachings of the Master Cult.
Give of the "list" of sins that make up those , and while you are at it, tell us what penance you had to do for your Priest the last time you confessed your sins to HIM.
K
Once saved always saved ? it's in the Bible is it ? no ! it is not at all.
And Faith alone !
Satan is the author of this rubbish full on.
poor Kidron is barking up the wrong tree with Mary and is all mixed up trying to reject things due to hatred and that is why people can not see the truth of Marys role, fact is she takes away noting of Christ at all, but in fact is a shining example to Christ. see if you can reject her position on that Kidron. i get a bit sick of people simply tossing Mary to the wolfs and claiming to be Christians.
Mary has never been regarded as in the same position as Jesus Christ ever ! but without Mary there would not be Jesus and there is a reason why Mary was the one, Kidron.
Is Jesus Christ the King of Heaven ?
And Faith alone !
Satan is the author of this rubbish full on.
poor Kidron is barking up the wrong tree with Mary and is all mixed up trying to reject things due to hatred and that is why people can not see the truth of Marys role, fact is she takes away noting of Christ at all, but in fact is a shining example to Christ. see if you can reject her position on that Kidron. i get a bit sick of people simply tossing Mary to the wolfs and claiming to be Christians.
Mary has never been regarded as in the same position as Jesus Christ ever ! but without Mary there would not be Jesus and there is a reason why Mary was the one, Kidron.
Is Jesus Christ the King of Heaven ?
So, you are yet another Catholic denying that salvation is based on faith in Christ alone.
Well, thanks for standing up for Catholic heresy.
And regarding Mary worship,.... i noted that you did not even attempt to dispute what i posted, you only disagreed with it according to your Mary Worshiping inclinations.
Thank you for proving my point.
I can always count on a Catholic to worship Mary, and deny "faith".
After all, what else can a Catholic do?
Its what you believe.
Its what your Pope believes.
Just like you he kneels continually at the feet of the "bless'ed Virgin".
Just like you he prays that the "Queen of Heaven" will be there at his death.
K
aspen
“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
So you are willing to follow the teachings of a man who made up the idea of sola scriptura and sola fide, both of which defy sola scriptura - so much so, that in order to support sola fide, the same man also had to add and subtract from scripture......
Maybe I have heard the sound of one hand clapping....hahaha
Similar threads
