Women Becoming Catholic Priests

Author: Barney
Dogma
Imago Dei
Priesthood

Posts

Total: 130
#91
Melcharaz
Melcharaz's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 780
2
5
8
Melcharaz's avatar
Melcharaz
2
5
8
-->
@Barney
2 But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine:
2 That the aged men be sober, grave, temperate, sound in faith, in charity, in patience.
3 The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;
4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,

The bible is clear about women. Also you will stop the direct attacks toward me. I expect a mod to behave maturely. 

The women rule over children and submit to the husband. Children are not men and women. When a child grows up, then they are men and women.  You need to understand categorical distinctions before trying to exegete.

Topic's author
#92
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@Melcharaz
Also you will stop the direct attacks toward me. I expect a mod to behave maturely. 
Do you mean quoting you, or correcting you such as when you rejected the very scripture you tried to use for evidence?
#93
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Barney
Malcharaz is intolerant of alternative opinion, seemingly misogynistic and  has a propensity to block rather than to discuss rationally and in an adult fashion.

As for the thread....Well, man or women it makes no difference...it's still the blind leading the blind irrespective of reproductive system and mammary glands.
#94
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@zedvictor4
Malcharaz is intolerant of alternative opinion, seemingly misogynistic and  has a propensity to block rather than to discuss rationally and in an adult fashion.

Indeed and all rather cowardly to leave a response without leaving the recipient an opportunity to respond himself. 
#95
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Barney
Gnostic Gospel of Thomas, Peter says to Jesus: "Tell Mary to leave us, "for women are not worthy of life." 114.1

 This from the man of whom it is said that Jesus' church will be built on. This is the Catholic church is it not?

Then Jesus says something strange in the extreme:

I myself shall lead her in order to make her male so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you men.114.2

Jesus then follows this up with :

For every woman that will make herself male, will enter the kingdom of heaven. 114.3

All a bit esoteric,  for "those who have ears", just like the Sermon on the Mount.

Topic's author
#96
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@Stephen
Gnostic Gospel of Thomas
For that I have an easy defense: By default, I don't care for fan-fiction, not even really old fan-fiction. For good biblical fan-fiction, I suggest reading Orson Scott Card's Women of Genesis series. Still, not something I'm likely to ever quote as evidence in any religious debate (save for one about better quality of writers available in modern times).

You're not the first person in this discussion to bring up fan-fiction, but you at least aren't mistaking such for the actual content of the bible.

However, back in #20 I went so far as to reject part of the bible that is canon. If I reject canonical garbage inside the bible, I'm of course going to more readily reject outside garage.
#97
DeusVult
DeusVult's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 107
0
1
1
DeusVult's avatar
DeusVult
0
1
1
-->
@Barney
It cannot happen.  The Church does not make up guidelines, it passes on what it has received.  Pope John Paul II settled it.


If there was ever any woman who would have been a priest it would have been the Blessed Virgin Mary - as the church teaches that she is the Queen of Heaven.  Yet she was not ordained.  Jesus took 12 men as apostles.  Those men only ordained men.  As the priest acts in Persona Christi it is only men who can be priests.  There is no way for the Church to ordain women.
Topic's author
#98
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@DeusVult
It cannot happen.
As I briefly mentioned back in #18, "even with the official ruling on the matter, a future pope could easily bypass that by declaring any female candidate is spiritually male for the purpose of acting in the place of Christ."

Not to mention there having been female Catholic priests before, such as Ludmila Javorová. Later declaring Czechoslovakians unworthy of having received the sacraments, does not change the fact that she was ordained at the time and gave them.


The Church does not make up guidelines, 
Except they literally do. For a glaring example, notice Jesus with the crown of thorns instead of that awesome pope hat. If they do not make up guidelines, show the part of the bible where Jesus made the official hat declarations? (Note: I am not claiming the pope should wear a crown of thorns)
#99
DeusVult
DeusVult's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 107
0
1
1
DeusVult's avatar
DeusVult
0
1
1
-->
@Barney
A Pope cannot change certain things.

A Pope cannot change things that the Church has already ruled on.  The Pope is akin to a steward and not a king.  The actual "job" of the Pope is to lead the Church and at times to clarify what the continual teaching of the Church has been.    He does not have the authority to introduce "novel" ideas into the Church, because the Church is not his; he's just tending it on behalf of the owner.

Any bishop who ordains a woman a priest, does not make the woman a priest, but rather excommunicates himself.  A bishop is like a minister that operates under and in co-operation with the steward.  If he acts against the king's laws his action is not valid.

A hat is not part of Catholic doctrine, it is a ceremonial vestment - the style of which changes gradually over time.  The bishop is the bishop whether he is wearing his mitre, and anyone else wearing a mitre does not become a bishop.  It is for the faithful to recognize his station whether they know him or not.  The shape has been adopted to signify the tongue of fire that descended upon the apostles at Pentecost.  Thus the faithful understand that this person has been elevated to a position of official successor of the apostles within the Church.

As noted in my original reply to you.  The Catholic Church considers Mary to be the most exemplary human ever.  They believe her to be the Queen of Heaven.  If there was ever any woman that would have been a priest it would have been Mary.  Except it didn't happen.  What about Mary Magdalene?  She accompanied Jesus she was given the honour to find the open tomb, and he even talked to her directly on Easter Sunday.  If Jesus had intended any other woman to be priest it would have been her, but she wasn't.

Lastly the Old Testament was a prefigurement of the New.  The Jewish priesthood likewise was male only - this was a prefigurement of the new priesthood that was established in the New.
#100
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Alec
Why can't the gays be satisfied with a civil union?
Because it was never about civil liberties. It was to have "Christianity"--namely Catholicism--publicly accept homosexuality.
Topic's author
#101
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@DeusVult
It cannot happen.
As I briefly mentioned back in #18, "even with the official ruling on the matter, a future pope could easily bypass that by declaring any female candidate is spiritually male for the purpose of acting in the place of Christ."
A Pope cannot change things that the Church has already ruled on. 
The modern church has changed from the historical church. Some examples off the top of my head: the crusades, the inquisition, and of course pedophilia. To the latter, our current pope disagrees with the prior rulings on what to do about it, and just last year had a summit to which he adopted new rules against pedophiles in contradiction to the old policies of support.


The Church does not make up guidelines, 
Except they literally do. For a glaring example, notice Jesus with the crown of thorns instead of that awesome pope hat. If they do not make up guidelines, show the part of the bible where Jesus made the official hat declarations?
A hat is not part of Catholic doctrine, it is a ceremonial vestment
Wearing those are guidelines which they made up and then follow. You even admit they choose to change them with time. ... With this it is already proven they are doing things Jesus neither did himself, nor commanded of them.


What about Mary Magdalene? 
Ironically with your talk of her, multiple other commentators have spoken against her having spread the good news of the rebirth. Yet Jesus himself trusted her to be the key messenger. ... I need to ask a dumb rhetorical question: Who acted better as apostle of Christ, Mary or Judas? One has the official designation, the other lived up to it (suicide pun intended).

Of course when Judas was replaced, candidates drew lots to determine the will of God. It was without any sanction from Jesus that women were excluded... Jesus next did not appear to this new apostle, rather he appeared to a woman to deliver his good news.
#102
DeusVult
DeusVult's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 107
0
1
1
DeusVult's avatar
DeusVult
0
1
1
-->
@Barney
You discuss practice and not doctrine.  It is not possible to change doctrine.

There is no problem with the Inquisition or the Crusades - both are very defensible if you would like to discuss those (just seems a side argument at the moment).

If you can show me any document where the Church said that Pedophilia was moral and licit I would entertain the discussion that the Church has changed its doctrine.  If you want to say that the Church changed the way that it punishes priests who broke their vow of celibacy with underage youth  that is a different discussion.

The Church has changed practice on certain things many times.  Take the Eucharist.  The manner of reception of the Eucharist by the faithful has changed over the years.  From what I understand, there was an early heresy that stated that the people could receive the body, but only the Priest was worthy to receive the blood.  So the Church said everyone should receive both.  Then there was another heresy that stated that unless you receive both you have not received communion.  So the Church said that everyone is only going to receive the body to show that the fullness of the Eucharist is fully present in both the Body and the Blood.  These days the blood is being made available to the faithful again.  No change in doctrine about what the Eucharist is and the necessity of receiving it, but a change in the manner of reception in order to teach the truth of the faith.

Ceremonial vestments are just that - ceremonial vestments.  They have a reason to exist and craftsmanship and materials change through time resulting in changes to them - just like the style of suits changes over time.  The ceremonial/formal wear remains fundamentally the same even though the style changes.  Those of course mean nothing to the doctrine being preached.  Organic growth has always been an aspect of Christianity - it is evidenced in the Acts of the Apostles.

Ummm... you are making a case against yourself by mentioning the succession of Judas.

“Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us— beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us—one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.” So they put forward two men, Joseph called Barsabbas (who was also called Justus), and Matthias. - Acts 1:21-23

So the Aposltes who had traveled with Jesus understood that it was necessary to promote somebody into a leadership position.  They also understood that it was only men whose names were to be put forward.  Jesus had explicitly given them authority.  So it would seem that your entire point has failed.

One's personal holiness does not mean the right to be a priest.  As previously mentioned, Catholics consider nobody more Holy than Mary - that doesn't change eligibility for priesthood because the role that the priest fulfills is reserved for men.  The priest stands in Persona Christi and not as himself.  As Jesus Himself said that He's the Bridegroom it requires a man to stand in his place.  Catholics hope that they are given a Holy Pope to lead them, they don't believe that the Pope is necessarily the most saintly person alive.
Topic's author
#103
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@DeusVult
The Church does not make up guidelines
You keep showing more and more guidelines they've made up and later changed.


Ironically with your talk of her, multiple other commentators have spoken against her having spread the good news of the rebirth. Yet Jesus himself trusted her to be the key messenger. ... I need to ask a dumb rhetorical question: Who acted better as apostle of Christ, Mary or Judas? One has the official designation, the other lived up to it (suicide pun intended).

Of course when Judas was replaced, candidates drew lots to determine the will of God. It was without any sanction from Jesus that women were excluded... Jesus next did not appear to this new apostle, rather he appeared to a woman to deliver his good news.
Ummm... you are making a case against yourself by mentioning the succession of Judas.
How is Jesus post-rebirth immediately showing favor to a woman they chose to exclude, me making a case against myself? Fallible humans did something, and Jesus seemed to shun that decision, opting to chose a woman to be the primary messenger of his rebirth.


The priest stands in Persona Christi and not as himself.
"Not as himself." Exactly. While we could not dress up a donkey and have it stand in the place of Christ, humans are all equally made in the same image of God. Even at the lowest points of humanity, we did not rule out any ethnicity from the priesthood, even while they look physically more different from Christ than another.


As Jesus Himself said that He's the Bridegroom it requires a man to stand in his place.  
Jesus used the bridegroom simile related to eating habits. I fail to see the logical connection to him answering a question about food, to him proclaiming that for all time no woman will be able to stand in in for him while we await his resurrection.
#104
DeusVult
DeusVult's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 107
0
1
1
DeusVult's avatar
DeusVult
0
1
1
-->
@Barney
You keep showing more and more guidelines they've made up and later changed.
My full quote:
The Church does not make up guidelines, it passes on what it has received.

The Church passes on the fullness of what was taught by Jesus.  The content of what it teaches cannot change.  How it chooses to teach it, is within the authority of the individuals according to the times and locations in which it does so.  No conflict and no making up stuff.

How is Jesus post-rebirth immediately showing favor to a woman they chose to exclude, me making a case against myself? Fallible humans did something, and Jesus seemed to shun that decision, opting to chose a woman to be the primary messenger of his rebirth.
Precisely my point.  Even though Mary Magdalene was the first person recorded to have been visited by Jesus after His resurrection (there is good reason to believe that He appeared to His mother Mary first) she was not a priest in the early Church.  Jesus chose men to be his 12.  They passed that on to men alone.  The Church is bound by the Tradition established by the early Christians.  It does not make up the faith, it passes on what it has received.

"Not as himself." Exactly. While we could not dress up a donkey and have it stand in the place of Christ, humans are all equally made in the same image of God. Even at the lowest points of humanity, we did not rule out any ethnicity from the priesthood, even while they look physically more different from Christ than another.
That we are made equally in the value of our souls, we are not made identically to carry out the same functions.  Jesus came as a man, chose men to be his 12 disciples, and they chose men to pass their authority to.  This has to do with the masculine and the feminine.  To God we are all "feminine".  The masculine is the giver, the feminine is the receiver.  God is pure actuality, the giver.  Men are the image of the masculine and women are the image of the feminine.  If you have a problem with this, it isn't the Catholic Church, but God Himself you have to take this up with.
Topic's author
#105
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@DeusVult
How it chooses to teach it, is within the authority of the individuals according to the times and locations in which it does so.  No conflict and no making up stuff.
Yet the rule about women is something it arbitrarily made up, directly against Jesus' own post rebirth actions regarding Mary, even while the church only exists with belief in the resurrection due to said actions.


How is Jesus post-rebirth immediately showing favor to a woman they chose to exclude, me making a case against myself? Fallible humans did something, and Jesus seemed to shun that decision, opting to chose a woman to be the primary messenger of his rebirth.
Precisely my point.  Even though Mary Magdalene was the first person recorded to have been visited by Jesus after His resurrection (there is good reason to believe that He appeared to His mother Mary first) she was not a priest in the early Church. 
Your point is that the early church rejected the example set by Jesus... Wow!


"Not as himself." Exactly.
That we are made equally in the value of our souls, we are not made identically to carry out the same functions. 
You seem to miss the part where priests are not acting as themselves. Unless God is very limited, matching genitalia should not matter when through the divine power of God someone is not acting as themselves. Plus if that arbitrary physical bit is too much for the power of God to overcome, why not various others?
#106
DeusVult
DeusVult's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 107
0
1
1
DeusVult's avatar
DeusVult
0
1
1
-->
@Barney
Yet the rule about women is something it arbitrarily made up, directly against Jesus' own post rebirth actions regarding Mary, even while the church only exists with belief in the resurrection due to said actions.
Can you show me where Jesus made Mary an apostle/bishop/priest?

Your point is that the early church rejected the example set by Jesus... Wow!
There is no rejection.  The apostles passed on what they had been given.  If female priests were to be a thing, they would have had female priests.

You seem to miss the part where priests are not acting as themselves. Unless God is very limited, matching genitalia should not matter when through the divine power of God someone is not acting as themselves. Plus if that arbitrary physical bit is too much for the power of God to overcome, why not various others?
God chose to make them "Male and Female".  He gave them different roles to perform on earth.  It is like saying why are you limiting God by saying only women can conceive children.  God chose things to be this way for a reason.  If you have a problem with that take it up with Him.

On a real side, every time there are women religious leaders, earth worship develops without exception.  It might just be God understands our natures a bit better than we do.
Topic's author
#107
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@DeusVult
You strangely seem to have missed our entire discussion of Jesus making Mary his key messenger. As you're disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing, there is no point to continuing this discussion with you.
#108
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@DeusVult
Yet the rule about women is something it arbitrarily made up, directly against Jesus' own post rebirth actions regarding Mary, even while the church only exists with belief in the resurrection due to said actions.
Can you show me where Jesus made Mary an apostle/bishop/priest?

She had something of a high status in the Jesus movement. She was a "woman of substance" in the position to be the one to anoint Jesus' head and feet with extremely expensive expensive oils .  Where did she get the authority to perform such a ritual? 

And didn't Jesus say :

‘Wherever the gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her.’ (Mark 14:9)

This was not the - supposed -  customary washing of the feet or head of a visiting friend or stranger .  These were more likely the stages of the anointing of a king. She had to have some kind of status and  authority to do this.  Not to mention that  Mary appears in all four gospels as one of Jesus's closest companions during his ministry in Galilee and Jerusalem. 
#109
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
Ok.... So scholars, what ever scholars might imply, refute suggestions that the character Mary's intent was instinctively human rather than a metaphysical attachment.  I would certainly agree with the suggestion that Mary's devotion to Jesus was probably hormone driven .  Interpretations of the biblical tales and other similar myth based accounts have a tendency to exalt central characters and ignore the realities of the human condition.

Assuming that the said characters were actually based upon real people of course. 
#110
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@zedvictor4
Interpretations of the biblical tales and other similar myth based accounts have a tendency to exalt central characters and ignore the realities of the human condition.

 They do. Apologist are famous for it. 


Assuming that the said characters were actually based upon real people of course. 

Indeed.

#111
DeusVult
DeusVult's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 107
0
1
1
DeusVult's avatar
DeusVult
0
1
1
-->
@Barney
You strangely seem to have missed our entire discussion of Jesus making Mary his key messenger. As you're disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing, there is no point to continuing this discussion with you.
Not at all.  The fact that Mary knew something and communicated it to the Apostles does not mean that she was a priest.  The function of priest is not based on knowledge.

Jesus chose those to whom the priesthood would begin at the last supper.  The washing of feet was not only the obvious symbol of the master serving, but was also the institution of the priesthood.


The symbolism that Jesus used at the last supper is the same symbolism that Aaron used in the Old Testament.  Jesus chose his priests, when he could have chosen women as well.
Topic's author
#112
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@DeusVult
I'm not calling her a priest, but by definition she was a chosen apostle of Christ; literally the first apostle of his resurrection.

From Merriam-Webster:
Definition of apostle
1: one sent on a mission
2a: a person who initiates a great moral reform or who first advocates an important belief or system


Yet even with agreement that she was the first human whom the reborn Jesus sent on a mission (AKA, the definition of apostle), you ask:
Can you show me where Jesus made Mary an apostle?


And again, others have used evidence that her obeying Jesus was apparently a sin because they disagree with Jesus about if women are allowed to speak or not. Yet Christ himself literally sent a woman with the explicit mission to speak in persona Christi (John 20:11-18). I've been called a heretic for this, but I choose to believe Jesus was not sinning nor leading anyone to sin with this.
#113
DeusVult
DeusVult's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 107
0
1
1
DeusVult's avatar
DeusVult
0
1
1
-->
@Barney
Definition of apostle
1: one sent on a mission
2a: a person who initiates a great moral reform or who first advocates an important belief or system
God has a mission for all of us.  The use of apostle in the context of the priesthood (which is of course the purpose of this thread) is that the apostles were sent on a specific mission.

And again, others have used evidence that her obeying Jesus was apparently a sin because they disagree with Jesus about if women are allowed to speak or not. Yet Christ himself literally sent a woman with the explicit mission to speak in persona Christi (John 20:11-18). I've been called a heretic for this, but I choose to believe Jesus was not sinning nor leading anyone to sin with this.
Once again context.  Most people receive early training about their faith from their both their mother and father.  That doesn't mean that the mother is sinning.  Many primary schools used to be taught by nuns, nobody would say they were sinning.  There is a difference between priest and a teacher.  All priests should be teachers, but not all teachers need be priests.  In the context of a Mass, it is only a priest who has authority to teach.
Topic's author
#114
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@DeusVult
You're disagreeing with Jesus Christ, on who can act in persona Christi.


In the context of a Mass, it is only a priest who has authority to teach.
Jesus sent a woman to teach the male apostles of the Resurrection. They presumably were not children at the time. If the literal order from the mouth Jesus himself is not adequate authority, I can't imagine what would be.
#115
DeusVult
DeusVult's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 107
0
1
1
DeusVult's avatar
DeusVult
0
1
1
-->
@Barney
You're disagreeing with Jesus Christ, on who can act in persona Christi.
Where?  In persona Christi, means literally as Christ.

Jesus sent a woman to teach the male apostles of the Resurrection. They presumably were not children at the time. If the literal order from the mouth Jesus himself is not adequate authority, I can't imagine what would be.
I saw no mass.  Could you show me where she was forgiving sins, consecrating a host, etc?  To have knowledge or information is not the same as having been consecrated for a purpose.  Maybe that is the issue, non-Catholics/Orthodox/Anglicans don't understand the concept of consecration.

Jesus consecrated the apostles into the new priesthood at the last supper.  They in turn consecrated others.
Topic's author
#116
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@DeusVult
Where? 
🤦🏻‍♂️ *facepalm*

#117
DeusVult
DeusVult's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 107
0
1
1
DeusVult's avatar
DeusVult
0
1
1
-->
@Barney
I'm still waiting.  To tell someone to go and do something does not mean that the person is acting in Persona Christi.

I have shown that Jesus instituted the priesthood with the apostles at the last supper, and the apostles raised others to replace them.  I see no laying on of hands or authority to forgive sins etc, as given to the other apostles.

Different roles .
#118
DeusVult
DeusVult's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 107
0
1
1
DeusVult's avatar
DeusVult
0
1
1
-->
@Stephen
She had something of a high status in the Jesus movement. She was a "woman of substance" in the position to be the one to anoint Jesus' head and feet with extremely expensive expensive oils .  Where did she get the authority to perform such a ritual? 

And didn't Jesus say :

‘Wherever the gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her.’ (Mark 14:9)

This was not the - supposed -  customary washing of the feet or head of a visiting friend or stranger .  These were more likely the stages of the anointing of a king. She had to have some kind of status and  authority to do this.  Not to mention that  Mary appears in all four gospels as one of Jesus's closest companions during his ministry in Galilee and Jerusalem. 
That in no way makes her a priest.  We are all called to love Jesus and anoint him with our lives.  Is it possible for an average person to be more holy than a priest, bishop, cardinal or pope?  YES!  We are all called to glorify God in our station in life.

She was a long disciple.  One who was greatly changes by Jesus, and a great saint.  All true.  It doesn't mean that she was a priest.  Jesus instituted the priesthood at the last supper.  He chose only men for this - Jesus made this choice.
Topic's author
#119
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@DeusVult
I'm still waiting.
🤦🏻‍♂️ *facepalm*


This is Jesus Christ post resurrection, making a woman the very first person granted the authority act in his place to do something. Disliking women in favor of men like Judas, does not change Jesus' documented choice on this matter following his rebirth.
#120
DeusVult
DeusVult's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 107
0
1
1
DeusVult's avatar
DeusVult
0
1
1
-->
@Barney
Did he give her authority, or did he tell her to do something.

A messenger is different than a minister.

Jesus made ministers.  In this case he sent Mary as a messenger to inform his ministers.

Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go.  When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted.  Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.  Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”  - Matthew 28:16-20

Here Jesus commissions the Apostles with the great commission.  It is a passing of authority by the king to his ministers as he notes his authority so that they understand they are acting with his authority.  Why wasn't Mary there is she had been made an apostle on Easter Sunday?  Not there, because she wasn't.