Women's authority over men?

The book of Jubilees
Epistle of Barnabas
Shepherd of Hermas
Paul's Epistle to the Laodiceans
1 Clement
2 Clement
Preaching of Peter
Apocalypse of Peter
Gospel According to the Egyptians
Gospel According to the Hebrews

This is only a partial list of books not accepted into the Canon. However, they were widely used prior to the Canon being established. There are others, but I have nothad time to research them.

 

Stop twisting the answer. Your statement was that women were property; I showed a passage from scripture that proved not all women were property, and you agreed. Your additional information was meant only to sway the opinion back to the "property" point of view, which you agreed was not 100% accurate.

I don't know if your list of books not included in the canon was meant for Ed, or for my question. If it was for me, you aren't answering the point made; I'll repeat it for clarification:

 

I have not read all the books that were not accepted into the canon, so I cannot answer you on that one.

[/B]

This was your quote and you are the one who mentioned that no mention was made of a husband or master, so it can only be assumed that you meant she was single. I agreed.

In the Greek society, and the Corinth is in Greece, women were not held in as low esteem as in Jewish society. So, it is much more likely that a woman, like Lydia or other women holding positions in both the church and in society that would have been impossible for a Jewish woman to hold.,


Here is what William Barclay says in his writing on I. Col. 11:

You might like to read:

Misquoting Jesus by B. Ehrman. I do not agree with Ehrman's personal theology, or lack there of, but I do recognize him as an authority on early Christian writings.

and

The Lost Apostle: searching for the truth about Junia by Rena Pederson

 

I remind you that the original point that I wrote about was:

My response was:

You've since agreed that you can neither confirm nor deny that accepted canon, nor "unaccepted" canon can be proven to identify any women who were pastors. Thus, your point that all books accepted into the canon were written by men has no validity in this discussion.

Yes, I agree that they were all written by men; but to be valid, the unaccepted canon would have to indicate women pastors, thereby supporting your supposition that accepted canon only recognized male pastors (and thereby supporting your insinuation that women pastors were 'edited' from the accepted canon).

I can't argue with you that women, in general, were held in lower esteem than males, and are still held in lower regard today in those same locations.

Your statement:

was an over-generalization, because, as you've subsequently admitted, not every society treated women the same way.

Let us not forget that each of these societies is mentioned in our scriptures.

We should not forget that Paul tells us in at least 2 different letters "there is neither Jew nor Greek, neither male nor female." But Paul also tells us, in Ephesians, that the husband is the head of the wife, just as Christ is the head of the church. And, of course, the oft-quoted-here "I suffer not a woman to to teach, or to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence" (see also 1 Cor 14).

The point being, no matter what type of organization you think you're in, someone has to have the final authority, be the one that takes the responsibility. The scriptural model identifies that role as the man. It's not a cultural model, it's a biblical one, comparing the way the male is to exercise that responsibility with the way Christ has the responsibility for the church.

You and the authors you keep referencing are free to exercise your liberty and mold things to the culture. I personally choose to follow the scriptural model.

 

I am curious, how do you balance what Paul says in I. Cor. 14:34-35 with what he writes in I Cor. 11:5?

And in the verses 34-5 Paul connects the subordination of women with Jewish law, and yet in 11:11-12 he repudiates this interpretation.

I have checked several commentaries and have gotten a variety of interpretations, none of which seem satisfactory.

 

First, by understanding that there's a difference between "preaching" and "pastoring." 11:5 (prophesieth, I assume is what you're talking about) is an example of preaching; but there is no indication of doing it from a position of authority (which would be a pastor).

Second, by recognizing that 1 Cor 14:34-35 specifies "in church." Again, indicating a woman (or women) who were exhibiting (or attempting to exhibit) some kind of pastoral authority over men.

Third, by understanding that verses 11-12 are predicated by vs. 7-9 -For a man indeed 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. For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

Which "marries" up with Ephesians 5 (all puns intended).

The ONLY way you can say that 1 Cor 11:11-12 indicate some kind of repudiation of 1 Cor 14:34-35 is by ignoring verses 7-9, which clearly state that the man is to be the head of the woman, just as Christ is the head of the church.

The usual misunderstanding is when people interpret this train of thought (and especially Ephesians 5:22) to mean that the woman is some sort of lesser being; this is not true. Genesis tells us that the woman was created to be a "help meet," not a slave. In this sole matter, I agree with Wade Burleson: IFBx pastors who teach that women are to be meek and submissive in a slave-type way, are not teaching biblical relationships. We men are to revere our wives as Christ reveres His church; we are to cherish and nourish the wife, as the Lord cherishes and nourishes the church; and love our wives, as Christ loves His church, and gave His life for it.

But again, the man is clearly identified in scripture as being the head of the woman.

(okay, heading to bed now; I'll check back tomorrow)

 

Our pastor's sermon Sunday was about gender roles.

He had a challenge for both men and women.

He challenged men to lead. We've all played follow the leader. What does the leader do? He goes first. He does not tell others where to go, he goes there first. So the challenge to men is to go first in being holy, in being Christlike, in putting the needs of others first. He challenged the men in their families to be the leader--doing the right thing first. He challenged the men in the church to be leaders--doing the right thing first.

And then he challenged the women to submit. Not to obey. Not to sit back and do nothing. But to submit--to follow the leader in being holy, in being Christlike, in putting the needs of others first.

Sure put a whole 'nother spin on this whole authority issue.

 

So are we then in agreement, of some kind, with Nodak?