A Woman's Place In Church

[queenbee]

Another good point about discussing this, everybody heads for the Bible and there isn't a thing wrong with that.

I don't have my notes with me so I can only post more in the evenings on this subject.

However though, the Bible has been translated by mere men and the translations have gotten changed.
What about the books of the Bible that were never included? Who decided what needed to be included and what wasn't important?
Why did we need the same thing repeated over and over in the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?

I use my Bible as a guideline on how I should be as a spiritual person, Proverbs is one of my most favorite books. However you can't live it word for word because of the contradictions.

I have the parallel bible with the KJV and the NIV only because I had some questions that needed to be answered or things I didn't understand and needed it in plain talk. I have found though that the NIV doesn't always match my thoughts on the KJV. I read both to come to a conclusion after a comparison of the versions and my thoughts.

I also have the Quest bible which is a good study Bible. They took each section of the chapters and sent them out to different groups of people (individuals) and ask them "After reading this section, what questions would you ask about it?" They they answered those questions.

I haven't read it as much here lately because of time constraints, but I have stopped watching TV through the week and only catch a movie on the weekends so I have more time for reading.

I also have the The Message Bible, which is excellent. I read and heard the controversy on it and decided I needed to see what it was all about. So I got it and what I do is read a verse or chapter from KJV/NIV then compare it to the Message and it's seems to be right on cue. I haven't gone all the way through yet but working on it.

My opinion on this is if you are trying to get the Bible read by a teenager or anyone who can't or won't understand the begets, and whosoever and wherefores then it's a good place to start. If you were raised on the Bible and have a general understanding of it then OK. But take a look at it as a teenager or a person you are trying to bring to the Lord, it's pretty confusing and basically boring.

I don't see how a person can form an opinion on a subject if they haven't studied it. How do you know it's bad if you haven't read it? As an adult do you trust someonelse's opinion more than you do your own? Do you allow your thoughts to be controlled by someones opinion? If so that is giving up free will and thought and I don't believe that there is anyone in this topic that does that.

I do know that as a child growing up in the Baptist church and attending Christian school for several years of my life that there were things I was taught that was based on someone's opinion, a supposedly leader in the church and as an adult when I read and studied it myself I realized I was told wrong.

I am not belittling Baptist at all, that is the church I attended as a child and teen here in Blairsville and in other parts of the state of Georgia. I have to give some reference as to the church I attended so you would know the background I am talking about.

I hope we can keep up this little bible class and we may all learn something new or at least another point of view we haven't pondered..

Thanks Bet's for the cool point.

[southpaw]

Ooooh, Ooooh, pick me. I know some of these answers I'll have to go find my book and get back to you later.

[queenbee]

Works for me, anyone can join in as long as they bee nice.

[summerose]

It says somewhere in the New Testament that women are to be silent in the church, but i can't remember which book, chapter, and verse it is.

[queenbee]

Here is an excellent book to read.

Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind who Changed the Bible and why
To long to paste so go here and read about it
www.powells.com/review/2007_07_14


His credentials (a man who has a formal education in the study of the Bible)

Summary of Curriculum Vitae

Ph.D. Princeton Theological Seminary (magna cum laude), 1985
M.Div. Princeton Theological Seminary, 1981
B.A. Wheaton College, Illinois (magna cum laude), 1978
Principal Areas of Research Interest: New Testament Interpretation; History of Ancient Christianity (first three centuries), especially Orthodoxy and Heresy, Formation of the Canon, NT Manuscript Tradition, Historical Jesus, and Apostolic Fathers;

Secondary Areas of Interest: Jewish-Christian Relations in Antiquity; Greco-Roman Religions; Christianization of the Roman World.

Bart Ehrman is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor and Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He came to UNC in 1988, after four years of teaching at Rutgers University.

Prof. Ehrman completed his M.Div. and Ph.D. degrees at Princeton Seminary, where his 1985 doctoral dissertation was awarded magna cum laude. Since then he has published extensively in the fields of New Testament and Early Christianity, having written or edited nineteen books, numerous articles, and dozens of book reviews. Among his most recent books are a college-level textbook on the New Testament, two anthologies of early Christian writings, a study of the historical Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet (Oxford Univesity Press), and a Greek-English Edition of the Apostolic Fathers for the Loeb Classical Library (Harvard University Press).

Prof. Ehrman has served as President of the Southeast Region of the Society of Biblical literature, chair of the New Testament textual criticism section of the Society, book review editor of the Journal of Biblical Literature, and editor of the monograph series The New Testament in the Greek Fathers (Scholars Press). He currently serves as co-editor of the series New Testament Tools and Studies (E. J. Brill) and on several other editorial boards for monographs in the field.

Winner of numerous university awards and grants, Prof. Ehrman is the recipient of the 1993 UNC Undergraduate Student Teaching Award, the 1994 Phillip and Ruth Hettleman Prize for Artistic and Scholarly Achievement, and the Bowman and Gordon Gray Award for excellence in teaching

[queenbee]

Well I guess you are all either speechless, reading the book I mentioned above or just totally closed minded to the subject matter.

The book doesn't discount getting saved and mis-quotes by Jesus, it discusses how scribes mis-quoted the works of Jesus and the disciples documentaries of his works.

They are not doing away with the context of the bible just explaining in different places how the text actually differs from the actual scrolls.

Just like the writing of the gospels had Mary Magdalene as a prostitute, she was not a prostitute and it has been proclaimed even by the Vatican.

Three decades ago, the Roman Catholic Church quietly admitted what critics had been saying for centuries: Magdalene's standard image as a reformed prostitute is not supported by the text of the Bible.

The only problem is that it turns out that she wasn't bad, just interpreted that way. Mary Magdalene (her name refers to Magdala, a city in Galilee) first appears in the Gospel of Luke as one of several apparently wealthy women Jesus cures of possession (seven demons are cast from her), who join him and the Apostles and "provided for them out of their means." Her name does not come up again until the Crucifixion, which she and other women witness from the foot of the Cross, the male disciples having fled. On Easter Sunday morning, she visits Jesus' sepulcher, either alone or with other women, and discovers it empty. She learns — in three Gospels from angels and in one from Jesus himself — that he is risen. John's recounting is the most dramatic. She is solo at the empty tomb. She alerts Peter and an unnamed disciple; only the latter seems to grasp the Resurrection, and they leave. Lingering, Magdalene encounters Jesus, who asks her not to cling to him, "but go to my brethren and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father ... and my God." In Luke's and Mark's versions, this plays out as a bit of a farce: Magdalene and other women try to alert the men, but "these words seemed to them an idle tale, and they did not believe them." Eventually they came around.

Mary Magdalene's image became distorted when early church leaders bundled into her story those of several less distinguished women whom the Bible did not name or referred to without a last name. One is the "sinner" in Luke who bathes Jesus' feet with her tears, dries them with her hair, kisses them and anoints them with ointment. "Her many sins have been forgiven, for she loved much," he says. Others include Luke's Mary of Bethany and a third, unnamed woman, both of whom anointed Jesus in one form or another. The mix-up was made official by Pope Gregory the Great in 591: "She whom Luke calls the sinful woman, whom John calls Mary [of Bethany], we believe to be the Mary from whom seven devils were ejected according to Mark," Gregory declared in a sermon. That position became church teaching, although it was not adopted by Orthodoxy or Protestantism when each later split from Catholicism.

For the rest of the story: www.danbrown.com/media/morenews/time.html

[blondie]

Not casting my pearl before the swine, is all!

[queenbee]

So if it doesn't agree with your belief it is wrong?

And your religion, whatever it is, is the only one who will be in Heaven?

Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:

For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

[blondie]

Jun 6, 2008 16:35:02 GMT -4 queenbee said:

So if it doesn't agree with your belief it is wrong?

And your religion, whatever it is, is the only one who will be in Heaven?

Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:

For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

No that was not what I said. Try reading it real slow like. If that don't work drag all them bibles out and study on it a while.

I bet you could understand it if you would copy and paste it like you do everything else.

[tessa]

This started out as a civil discussion. Unfortunately, Blondie can't resist throwing in a few barbs and sarcastic remarks that are totally uncalled for. Perhaps Blondie could just read her Bible silently at home and have a discussion with herself so others are not annoyed by her childishness.

[tessa]

I have no problem with women acting in the traditional male roles in church. I come from a long line of Episcopalians on my father's side of the family. That church has become very progressive over the past 30+ years. Some in the church believe it to be a good thing while others do not.

[bb]

The Lord gave women a brain and we are to use it. Not all men are those that should be in a position to lead anything, let alone a congregation. It really depends on the person, whether they are male or female doesn't matter.

[blondie]

Well looks like I was at least able to stimulate the conversation and get the posters going and I didn't even do a copy and paste.

[queenbee]

Well I give credit where credit is due, yes, you did start something. Bless your heart.

If a woman has been walking with God for several years and a man is just saved and has not had a lot of experience with spiritual way's, I believe the women is the one who should teach.

In Sunday school I like a woman teacher and I am sure that men feel better with a man teaching.

There are differences between women and men, that is just plain knowledge. They each have their own qualities. However, I feel that you should give a woman credit where credit is due.

I have never experienced a woman pastor, I do know I enjoy my Sunday school teacher, she is a wonderful lady.