Amy! You did it! You did it! You did it! You shared the truth we've known for years in such a compassionate way. Thank you. This is the Jesus I met in Galilee. The Jesus who will always have a warm place in my heart.
There’s actually a good deal of scholarship pointing out that even Paul was not as misogynistic as the translations/interpretations of the Roman-influenced men have made him to be. The Ephesians passage, for instance, is completely mangled both in translation from the Greek and in the way the verse divisions make the implication of male headship; and the Corinthians passage about women being silent in church was preceded by passages in which Paul talked about *when* women spoke, and that they should have authority “on their head” to do so. Paul was actually as counter-cultural as Jesus was!
Yah, the Epistles can be difficult. I remember getting whiplash as a teenager reading them, because one second he seems really kind and egalitarian and benevolent and the next he's this hard-bitten chauvinist.
I just finished the book The Making of Biblical Womanhood by Beth Allison Barr and she discusses the words of Paul being all cut and separated out of his rhetorical structure and pasted into and onto other sections completely out of context. If his actions of co-leadership and praises of female spiritual authority is anything to go by, however, he certainly seems to be walking Christ’s feminist walk.
Eh, the Ephesians letter is not that vague if you know Greek honestly. Αἱ γυναῖκες, τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν, ὡς τῷ Κυρίῳ. "Women, be to your husbands, as you are to the Lord." would be the most direct translation. But when looking at the prior verse for context, Ὑποτασσόμενοι ἀλλήλοις ἐν φόβῳ Χριστοῦ, "Be in submission to one another, in the fear of Christ.", it would be easy to see that the next verse should be translated as "Women, be in submission to your husbands, as you are to the Lord". But verse 21 also shows that this isn't about husbands being above wives, rather this submission is a thing all believers must be to one another. This is simply showing roles in marriage but this submission, considering the same is applied for each believer to one another, isn't being superior or better or having authority over.
My gosh, there was such peace after I left organized religion. I finally realized how corrupt and twisted conservative Christianity is (along with other conservative religions) and how it just wants to advance male-entitlement, and how it either attracts narcissistic men or creates narcissistic men. Something's really wrong when non-religions men treat women better than religious men do. Now, I just have Christ and no nonsense. Peace.
It's so depressing that throughout history the church has debated 'are women people' and the answer has consistently been 'kind of'. Like, yes women are humans, but. They're technically humans, but they don't get to exercise many of the attributes at the core of what it means to be human, like having agency. And that this is seen as progress somehow. Like it's not even the bare minimum. I really hope we find out in heaven that this is NOT what God's plan was but part of the fall and a huge expression of evil and sin. It's really hard when there are parts like that in God's word and they just seem so earthly and like human beings added them in and they never came from God, as some scholars think, but we won't actually know until heaven-- and we just have to trust that God himself is safe and trustworthy, despite appearing to endorse abuse and dehumanisation in those verses. It is a comfort that at least those things never came from the literal mouth of God when He spoke in the Bible, or from Jesus.
A woman could only be given the authority by God to execute a man for his sin, if women are spiritually equal to men. A Judge could judge homicide cases according to Deuteronomy. Therefore Deborah, as a Judge, could execute a man for his sin. A Judge's verdict could not be altered or appealed. Refusal to accept a Judge's verdict on any matter, resulted in execution, according to Deuteronomy. A Judge was cleared to teach from scripture as he/she gave a verdict, according to Deuteronomy. Since in Judges 4, men went to Deborah to be judged, a woman could teach men, even in the Old Covenant in a public setting. A Judge was REQUIRED in scripture to judge only the hardest of cases. Full essay read time: 12 minutes
I grew up UK Methodist and went to a Church of England high school in the 1970s. I never heard anyone taking this misogynistic stuff seriously. When the Internet arrived and I discovered what US Christians believed it was a huge shock. So was believing the earth is only 6,000 years old and the attitude to corporal punishment. I used to get smacked with an open hand when I'd been very naughty, and here were people insisting it was godly to whack their kids hard enough to leave welts. It got me questioning everything, which eventually led to me leaving the church altogether.
This is the worst thing about Christians - they openly advocate for normalizing child abuse, and yet they smear their political opponents by calling them child abusers.
I often wonder, too, if Christian religions and their churches would allow such a man as a living, breathing Jesus within their patriarchal spaces. They don't mind having images of his crucified dead body stuck, silent, above their Christian altars. What would they do if a living, breathing Jesus said: "Thou art bearing false witness against my teachings. And why are you assembled in this tomb-like building? Come into the light and fresh air. Follow me to the nearest hill. Women first alongside me and all the female children, too...Blessed are they..."
It’s weird how the headship concept has become the whole religion for so so many. I went to Christian church for years and it was every single sermon at least mentioned if not harped on.
Some have made human men the center of the faith. In this, they fail to understand that they have created a golden calf of men. Christ alone is our model. He is our example.
Took Women in the Early Christian church my freshman year in undergrad because I love my faith, theology, and history. So glad I did, because with that course and my continual Christian devotions and text studies... I was not quite what my Caribbean mother and church family expected. In fact, I and many of my peers began to shake up the traditional values of our church and helped break the generational & spiritual divide.
I just want to say this because you give the impression that Jewish gender norms have changed while they have not, for really observant Jews. The description of gender roles in Judaism was spoken as if it were only in past tense, while in Orthodox Jews still live with those gender norms completely unchanged.
I just recently had this very exact discussion- my argument was that Jesus must have been the first feminist in the world, because, as we can read in the Bible, he actually talked to women in a respectful manner (e. i. the women by the river who had several sexual encounters with married men), he also talked to women who were not Jewish, which was uncustomary, his mother plays a crucial role according to the Gospels, and he had a large female following of both Jewish and Roman women. It is also very clear why Poul was given such a prominent role in the New Testament- even though he wasn't one of the 12 disciples- never knew or met Jesus- and his words go against the teachings of Jesus - thank you for sharing this video- 😀
@@apologiaromana4123 context: 2000 yrs ago in Judeo-Roman context was brave and especially for women "out of law" sexually - who could easily get stoned Also, see how he is restrictive about marriage and the case when it was legit to break it , which was the most important status for women . Notice also that when it comes to lust he never say "women, cover yourselves more" but "men rather throw your eyes away" which is something we struggle with even in 21st century western world. Unless people have a poor history education and didn't bother to read the Gospels, it's striking that Christianity is a turning point in antiquity for women role. Also Paul: whenever he says submit to your husband readily adds a husband must.be ready to die for his wife, and especially his words "In Christ we are all one, there's no Jew or Greek , free or slave, man or woman" are absolutely revolutionary. It wasn't "intuitive" at all back then
But Paul said a woman can't be in a role position she has to obey her husband, never talk in church/congregation, if she has questions to leave them to when they'll arrive home & there only to address with her husband (stupid rule the last one, mb I misunderstood.. )
@@mayanlogos92 scholars increasingly doubt that those words are actually his because 1) they follow shortly 1 Corinthians 11, 4-5 where he says that man and woman who pray and prophesize should both cover their heads and use for both the same word ,profetèuein. Which means a lot about speech to be heard by the whole community and for the edification of community itself 2) Paul letters have a lot of women quoted as active members , assertive and inspired and presented as example (Rm 16,5) and able to convert and instruct even their own unbelieving husbands 3) once again context, as much Paul could appease some sexist demand among his mainstream audience , don't forget that audience came from an ultra-sexist habit. The Jewish historian Josephus Flavius states "As the law declares, a woman is inferior in everything (respect men)" And women unusually active / respected was one of the reasons early Christians were perceived as subversive weirdos by the society around them. Edit let alone the impact Paul's words had among Catholic saints and thinkers, st John Chrysostom comments them both rejoicing for the top tier women are in Christian community and how "we men drown in shame because we are so behind them!"
@@apologiaromana4123 as much as I agree that chivalry and good manners don't mean being feminists and even less so being feminist as in today's world (I got lost myself, lately , and always used to think to be a rather die hard feminist 😅) Paul and Jesus entourage could not pass for the average sexist dude in Judeo-Roman-Greek antiquity. Jesus himself was def a singularity. His "speaking nice" was dangerously enough to seem a sinner (even suspected to "fornicate" with those unholy women, as Luther himself reports and seems even to agree)
One correction. The council of Nicaea did not convene to establish the books of the Bible. Rather they were there to consider certain Heresies. The First Council of Nicaea, was specifically called to make a decision about Arianism.
Outstanding. Both the scholarship and the advice for reaching out to both Christians and non-Christians. Your openness and compassion will be more persuasive than any other approach I can think of.
I’ve grown up catholic my whole life and came across feminist theology at university, absolutely loved this video!! Will share to all my friends! You’ve probably got everything written out and planned. But researching the early church and the tradition of single virgins for Christ- aka what we’d call nun’s now was really interesting to follow. Women being able to claim themselves as “brides of Christ” saved them from becoming property and let them ascend to the levels of men
as a sister in Christ, do not under any circumstance get into anything feminist. Seek your value in Christ and not in wordly ideologies that aim at putting down men and and family. Most mistreatment of women in history was done in pagan and protestant cultures, not catholic. Please seek the truth, not feminism. Feminism leads us directly to the sin of pride when we should strive for humility!!! signed, former feminist who came back to the traditional catholic faith❤
@@patricial.321 This unfortunately really isn’t true, the Catholic Church has quite nasty History towards women and a lot of the issues women face today in western cultures is because of the Churches institution. Most Church Fathers taught that women were inferior in every way to men and that their only purpose is to have children. St Augustine said that women don’t even hold the image of God and he can’t imagine why God would create such a being. Much of western History women have only been defined as their relationship to men, daughter, wife, mother. Women legally did not exist. A saving Grace might be with the consecrated virgins/religious Nun’s. Who could have a chance to somewhat form an identity for herself as ‘bride of christ’
@@patricial.321 being a Feminist has helped me be better Catholic and i don’t think i’d be as good as a feminist if it wasn’t for my Faith. Feminism helped me realise how much i was relying on the opinions of men and getting boyfriends when i needed to be focusing on my identity in Christ. Feminism has helped me not be afraid to stand out and step up, to be a proud Christian women and not put up with sexism that is still very much alive. God has given me amazing gifts and talents and passions. For women to live their best life fully alive and not in fear or shame(John 10:10) And next year I’m considering joining a Religious Order. 🥰 Feminism has brought me closer to Jesus
@@patricial.321 additionally true good feminism doesn’t put down men and the family. If anything feminist say it’s not acknowledged enough the amount of work that women put into their families. Feminism strives for equality for all, both men and women. To live in a egalitarian society (one that quite closely resembles that of the early church). That women most certainly can choose to be mothers, but at the same time can choose others as well.
@clementine5053 Well, I'm relieved. But feminisms origin lies in the rejection of patriarchy, rejection of gender roles, and the nuclear family. The mothers of feminism all had a deep hatred for God, men, and family and died alone. I don't consider wanting to be treated as human and have rights as a woman feminist, that's just normal and very Catholic. But I'm glad you're not like the early mothers of feminism, I'd just be very careful 😁
What a lovely video. I was born in a Catholic family (as most people are in Québec.) However as a teenager I decided to leave organized religion since it did not align with my values (I wasn't fond of sexism and homophobia.) Jesus is always soooo much better then the church.... That is quite sad. He is inspiring and way, way ahead of his time. Honestly, after reading Ayaan Hirsi Ali's autobiography I started to realize Christianity was nowhere near as horrible as Islam (I never thought that was gonna happen, but the comparaison really made me appreciate the moral core provided in Christianity through Jesus.) She is one of my heroes.
@user-jt1fu5yj8l It depends on what you accept as proof. I'd probably start by consulting that Bart Ehrman book that oldstix just mentioned. It's sort of like being a singer, being told to buy a copy of the Schirmer 24 Italian Songs and Arias from the 17th and 18th Centuries, and reading through some of them and realizing that the composer who supposedly wrote some of them could not have possibly written them because they sound all wrong.
@@Anonymoususer08 Paul's teachings are all over the place on multiple subjects. Even if he wrote everything, he's still off. Paul contradicts Jesus. Paul contradicts Paul. Not just on women either.
In Romania I grew up being told not to enter the church when I was menstruating because women are dirty in these days. This is the '90 and early' 2000s. This attitude was stronger in the Orthodox church than the Catholic one. Thank you so much for the context you provide.
As far as I know pope gregory the great allowed woman to entrer the church and receive communion during menstruation when he was asked about by an English monk named augustine of cauntenbey in the 6th ou 7th century. I believe you can find this letter on the internet
@yasminefathalah7042 I am happy to hear that, and that would explain why in the Catholic church, it was not imposed. But in the Orthodox, it was. I can't recall if I ever heard the priest saying it explicitly, but the custom was very clear. Plus, women were supposed to cover their hair in the church once married - not practiced that much anymore. But just a clarification, the pope is not the head of the Orthodox church.
It is a good thing we no longer have slavery. But what if we did? It was a real thing in the early church. Slave and masters worshipped and learned of Jesus side by side, both now equal in all things--- except that one was still owned by the other. Paul never spoke against slavery only gave advice on how to operate that both were now christains. What if slavery were still part of society today? Just imagine the list of church rules governing how a master and slave should interact…i put woman and men in ( ) due to that these questions are very much in discussion today when it comes to women 1- Should a slave (woman) ever teach sunday school in which masters(men) might attend? 2- Could a slave(woman) be a pastor or deacon? 3- Could a slave(woman)write a book or have a youtube channel the master(men) might read or hear? 4- Does the master(man/husband)always have the final say? 5- Can a master(man/husband) decide what the slave(woman) wears ? 6- Can a master(man/husband) decide what jobs can be assigned to the slave(wife)? 7- Does the master/man (husband) always have the final say? 8- how should the slave(wife) approach the master(man/husband) with a problem? 9- can the slave(wife)disagree with the master/man/husband ? Our modern minds and sensibilities recoil at the very idea when the words slave and master are used and the very thought of even coming up with these questions is abhorent. Why are they not considered with the same reactions when the words woman/wife and man/husband are used? In fact these questions are often discussed and rules made from them to control those uppity and rebellious women in many churches.
I appreciate what you’re doing here, but I need to state that you are misunderstanding and misrepresenting Jewish teaching and practice in the ancient world ( and certainly now).The Torah and Jewish tradition introduced protections and liberties for women that were radical for the ancient world. Women were prophets, judges, and business owners. Also, our tradition in both ancient and modern times does not read or interpret texts the way Christianity does. Saying ‘The Mishnah states….’ means almost nothing without familiarity with the body of Jewish teaching and tradition. In general as a tradition, we do not interpret texts literally or rigidly, and we are constantly questioning and debating our texts. Jesus interacted with women in a typical way for a first century Jew. My understanding from my rabbi is that the division of men and women in sacred spaces was not originally a Jewish practice. It became the norm from the influence of surrounding cultures and particularly from Muslim influence.
Only 7 of the 13 letters attributed to Paul are believed to be really by him. Several of the statements saying mainly men should lead are from the two letters to Timothy which many scholars believe are not really by Paul.
I always believe that it is human who interpret the religion of God in patriarchal manners. God himself is God, the Almighty, why should He be a patriarch? that never makes sense. Salam for my Christian sisters and brothers.
The real history of the Bible needs to be more revealed also which can also be found for those who would want to truly understand more, thank you again❤
Very cool video, and hopefully it gets some traction. Howver, jalthough I see the same thing said in multiple places, I don't think the Council of Nicaea had anything to do with establishing the canon. (Granted, it was all male, but so were pretty much all of them, right?) I think the canon was established over a long period of time in several councils/meetings, not to mention that it sort of developed in different places according to what books were popular in different areas. It was sort of a scrum. This is why the contents differ among the most ancient copies of the Bible that are extant. Codex Sinaiticus, for instance, contains "The Shepherd of Hermas" and "The Epistle of Barnabas."
You are correct. There were numerous councils held that decided the books of the NT and many verbal and physical fights over such selections. Early Christianity wasn't all love and peaceful, but it was brutal and different sects actually fought battles with each other over trivial doctrine. Armies of monks would raid and murder whole villages of other people who claimed a different Christian doctrine. Heads of sects were exiled and called heretics. After the Roman Empire adopted Christianity as its official religion, the early Christians took much delight in attacking non-Christians and their places of worship. Christianity began to spread, but it was mostly spread at the tip of the sword. Christianity has been brutal and vicious throughout its long history just as any religion becomes when it obtains political power. That is something our framers of the Constitution knew well as they saw it up close.
I'm surprised you didn't mention the story of Jesus helping the adulteress. For those who don't know, in one story in the Bible, a woman was brought before Jesus and charged with adultery, despite the man she allegedly committed this crime with not being taken for punishment. The men want her to be stoned to death, as that was the punishment for adultery in those days. But Jesus responds by merely writing in the sand. Then he says to the other people in the temple, "let whoever is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her." In fury, the others leave. Jesus then asks the woman if anyone is here to condemn her, and she says no, then he goes "neither then do I condemn you, go now, and sin no more." The woman is then happy to leave and no longer commit adultery. To me, this shows that Jesus protected women from unfair laws at the time that punished them for actions that men got off scot-free for, and also how he respected women as equal human beings while giving them another chance at redemption. I find that very profound in a way that is hard to describe.
Rockin on girl 👍🏾 Christianity is a funny word in that it technically means believe in Jesus, where in many claim profound Christianity without knowing much real truth of Jesus and presume you can only be Christian if you belong to a church, which is straight up false, there is debate on believe in Jesus or Jesus as the Christ being the definition of Christian, there is a wealth of truthful factual information available on the whole history of this and of all the various churches, again much thru the patriarchal culture and societal rules, but factual information without manipulation intended is more and more becoming available 👍🏾
Best way i can explain what Paul says is that it says Wives should submit to their husbands, Husbands should love their wives". It doesnt say women should submit to all men, and it doesnt say we should submit to the patriarchy. I think men should be the head of the household and the church. But they should also love their wives - which a lot of men who want a submissive woman dont seem to remember. I even had one man ask me "what is love? Thats a subjective idea". But the bible does tell us what is love multiple times. I myself have no problem submitting to a husband who loves me and provides for me. But i dont believe it means that women shouldn't work, or women are inferior to men.
Adam and Eve they both sinned, first with their action and then with their word, weak but not bad. (Let's not forget that Adam chose to trust Eve in that delicate moment) By opening a small door you can see those quotes either as a hammer of justice against wicked women or as a hard and difficult test of faith for pious women. The woman is the second gift after the Garden, and it was man himself who crowned her (imagine a veil, a female symbol of dignity, royalty and then of sanctity). With joy for God Adam tells Eve that through her man will be reborn and become immortal (Saint Joseph, Virgin Mary and Jesus Christ). When they were kicked out they immediately embraced each other again, securing and comforting each other, and the Archangel Michael prophesied their salvation (the biblical rapture from Limbo). Saint Adam and Saint Eve, parents of humanity together with Saint Joseph (the Chaste Heart) and Saint Mary (the Immaculate Heart), parents of Jesus Christ (the Sacred Heart and God Incarnate). Joseph the Counselor of Heaven and Mary the Queen of Heaven. (From Dante's Divine Comedy) The Nine Heavens, the Seven Archangels and the Two Saints of Paradise: I Raphael and Mercy, II Gabriel and Hope, III Barachiel and Love, IV Uriel and Wisdom, V Jeudiel and Faith, VI Michael and Justice, VII Sealtiel and Devotion, VIII Joseph and Peace, IX Mary and Charity. (There are many Saints and Blessed who talk about them)
It has always been this way for the sacred service of women in the Holy Church: the consecrated virgins and the nuns. The ultimate divine reward is to receive Mary's veil and become her handmaid.
I have been researching women’s roles in the church for several years now. Been all over the net reading both egalitarian and extreme legalist patriarchy sites. Here are my conclusions. And it is in no way complete. Here is what i found out about patriarchy/complementarianism ( teachings that hold to women being in submission and not being in any leadership or pastoral preaching position) vs. egalitarianism (which holds to that God equally gifts both men and women according to His will.) 1 patriarchy is biblical but only in that it is recorded as historical in the scriptures---it is not commanded as God's will in any way...it is just the way families lived back then.......note....... slavery was also part of that culture and society. Paul never spoke against nor supported either. 2 sites that promote patriarchy as God's will for women (wife, mother, home)....usually present hundreds of rules for women to follow that range from how to dress, what jobs god approves of (homebody, wife, midwife, home school teacher- just a few)-- that women should not go to college, woman must have babies, lots and lots of them, women should never preach or teach, or have authority over men, etc.....and those rules keep increasing in severity and stringency, now including in some Christian groups, that men can and should spank disobedient wives !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 3 there are mainly 2 rules for men at pat sites.....lead and breed and now disciplining the wife with spanking or a good back handing, taking her credit cards or lowering her allowance 4 pat sites try to make it sound like God wants all christian families to be like 1950's” honey I'm home” but forget that women have worked outside the home all over the world for millennia and also forget the black and mexican women have worked inside the homes of white women for decades 5- pat believers are often very unfriendly, even vitriolic if you disagree with them calling names and casting aspersions on one's salvation 6 egal sites write articles based on years of learning bible languages, history and culture, then leave it up to the reader to decide 7 you will find many sites where women tell their stories of abuse under pat teachings because the abuser hides behind the misquoted scriptures that women are to be silent and submissive 8 you will not find sites were women are abused under egalitarian teachings because each individual is responsible to god for their spiritual and other growth 9 pat teachings say the husband is the spiritual leader of the wife and responsible for her spiritual growth........should a fallible man be responsible for another adult’s growth in the Lord. What if he is abusive? Sad thing is that pat has morphed into allowing and endorsing wife spanking for when she disobeys or does not please the husband. 10 the only Christians groups offering advice and help and resources for women abused under patriarchy are the egalitarian groups. Mostly the pat/comp groups throw scripture at an abused wife and tell her to go back to the abuser and be more submissive and obedient.
The LDS church does not support abusive husbands and counseling is available to help the women in that situation. And divorce is definitely an option in these circumstances.
no church "supports" abusive husbands, so to speak, but to them a man in authority over a wife is not abusive, even if he is abusive...he is just acting as the bible told him to act, in charge of the home and there are times what seems abusive to us is not abusive to the man or the church leaders, who are men.
There is no such thing as year zero. The calendar goes from 1 BC to 1 AD. Also Herod the Great past away in the year 4 BC, which would set the birth of Jesus before that.
Where did you get the idea that “an issue of blood twelve years” related to menstrual blood? From what I see, it basically say she had an issue of blood which could mean one of many things but doesn’t specific which one
The Timothy letters are now considered forgeries from the 2nd century and do not reflect Paul’s teachings. If anything, women ran Paul’s communities as has been pointed out. The Roman patriarchy comes from Aristotle who once said women were deformed men. And as is pointed out, women ran the family home business important if the husband went off to trade as a merchant. In Jewish and ancient culture, women were praised as fonts of wisdom.
The LDS view point is much different toward Eve then many religions, Christian, Muslim, etc. The belief is that Eve did what was necessary, not evil. None of God's requirements for His plan of Salvation would have been met had she not thoughtfully reasoned out what needed to happen. Eve is held in high esteem, not looked upon as stupid, mindless or evil. I don't believe the patriarchial order was given as a punishment to Eve, rather that was God's plan from the beginning. He is preparing His sons to fulfill the role that He does and wants them to become Godly as He is. I feel that females will have absolute joy in the roles they will fulfill in following our Mother in Heavens direction when it is given. I feel woman have a bit of a head start in spirituality by nature of their creation and the roles they inherit as nurturers to many, including husbands. And through their roles as mothers. Evil men twisted Patriarchy, God never intended woman to be treated less than men, or to be abused, made servants, etc. In fact men are to treat Her as Christ loved and laid down His very life for the Church. Men are easily distracted and tempted, sometimes radical evil changes happen quickly, sometimes subtley over time. Sometimes the right from the wrong isnt clear anymore. I think alot of this has happened and even good men are confused on what the Lord originally intended. Things become more tradition than truth and leaders need to be interested enough to find out truth. As a mother of all sons and sister to all brothers, I have seen the unique challenges men face and I have never felt less than a man, in fact, in many ways, I felt a greater spiritual strength quite often. I know that woman would do an amazing job leading the church, no doubt. But what would men be doing? Alot of them would not be attending church, probably opt for fishing, etc. on the sabbath. I feel that giving them responsibility of the priesthood is the best way to teach and keep God's sons in remembrance of Him. It definately is not that He doesn't believe His daughters are capable. He knows His daughters are capable of doing any thing asked and that she would give it her highest effort. He observed us for millions, billions, who knows how long and understood our natures. He asked us to be help meets for a reason and to lend support. He knew His sons needed that and that they had to be held to a high responsibility in order to save them in the long run. A faithful and confident male does not try to supress however. He wants his wife to become all she wants to be and values her counsel, opinions, etc., and listens and implimemts them because it is sometimes what is best for the family and her individually. An unrighteous and egotistical male just wants power and authority, not leading in righteousness. There lies the problem and alot of womens roles feel diminished. This happens in the home and at the church leadership level some times. The brethern certainly could have been much better at listening and addressing womens concerns years ago. I hope they continue to be prayerful about our service within the power of the priesthood and in our intellect in leadership without losing men in the process. I have seen some real positive changes since Pres. Nelson has been the prophet and I am prayerful more will come. The history of patriarchy is interesting and thank you for sharing.
Got to remember the forming of churches in already patriarchal systems, along with who,where and when translation occurs in existing patriarchal system s and alterations for what purposes
Isn’t this just a case of people seeking confirmation in the Bible rather than letting it reveal revelation? Im pretty confident that the Bible does subscribe to roles in any form of relationship. But nowhere have I seen the Bible promote self exultation
A lot of these beliefs come from a book called Malleus Maleficarum aka the Hammer of Witches. It is disgusting the things this man preached about women. And it caught on so well it is still ingrained in men to this day
@@dayofthejackyl The council of Nicea was not made to establish the Canon of the new testment, The primary role of Council was to combat the Arian theology that contradticted the now mainstream doctrine of the trinity. Also she alludes to the Gospel OF MAry being omitted from the composition because the church leaders did'nt want attension to be placed on a woman, but in reality the Gospel Of Mary contained Gnostic belifs another theology that opposed trinitarian christianity and teh Pauline Epistles were distributed to the early churches by a promeinent leader, it would make more sense to include them over the Gospel OF Mary that was, from the perspective of Early christians theologically inconsistent with their belifs.
This ignores that one jesus gave authority to only men Luke 9:1-2 and that the gospel of mary was likely a gnostic text. also the council of Nicaea was called to anathematize arianism and other heresy not to establish biblical canon. Matthew 5:17-20 Jesus gives authority to the heart of the law because it was made by hismself and his father and the holy spirt. Lord Jesus Christ son of god have mercy on us☦
I see your orthodox so you probably won’t listen but Jesus gave the 12 men authority (one of the reasons) because he knew they would be persecuted harshly and he probably didn’t want that to happen to women, secondly, all over the Bible there were women leaders ,Jesus was always there, he gave them those roles and authority
@@Anonymoususer08 you´re right the son gives authority to women but not to lose and remain sin. secondly i dont know if you´re christan but how could I just disregard the word of paul who is a great Saint. thirdly the Orthodox church teaching is clear and evan if i found it personally wrong i do not have authority to change that. God bless☦
Oh come on, he couldn't have female apostles back in that society. That would have been dangerous for them and would have discredited him. His interactions with women were radical enough. Now, you'll probably say that Jesus being God could have made women apostles anyway but didn't. To that I respond that he could have outlawed slavery but did not, so I assume we should still have slaves today? After all Paul said for slave to obey their masters. See how ludicrous this all is? So, put way your "only males were apostels" argument because that's not today's society. We have women scientists winning the Nobel Prize, women astronauts, women succeeding in all areas, while conservative Christians say male apostles only! I do not permit a woman to teach! And so on.
Its noteworthy how she left out how Paul expressed a man and woman must have equal rights and Privileges in a relationship- 1 Corinthians 7:3-4 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.
This is so incredible. I never would have guessed that every tradition within Christianity for the last 2,000 years missed this and we happen to live in just the day and age where the truth can break out. Who would have thought that the Bible could be so deeply corrupted for so long. It makes me wonder why God would try so hard to communicate to his people but then fail so spectacularly.
We'll because men took over the religion. Women had leadership in the very beginning but men took over and relegated women to second class citizenship. Duh! Men created and managed the religion and that's why they didn't reveal the feminist stuff to us. They didn't want to lose their power. Duh!
Because men wrote the Bible, not God. They wrote it to establish their power, their ancestry (the begats) and their dominance in the region as the ‘chosen’
Dan McClellan (bible scholar) can help clarify these thing further. I know woman should be treated as equals/ as people, and we should also note our complimentary differences. Glad we don't live in the past
The Bible is egalitarian as it is right now If read in the proper (hisoric/cultural) context, including the letters of Paul (maybe read them completely), the gospel of many Magdalen is a forgery and the Bible Canon was already widely asdablishd before nicea. To the topic of Paul; I think his Stands / teaching is well seen in 1.Korinther 11 "Also, man was not created for woman. Woman was created for man. 10 That’s why a woman should have authority over her own head. She should have this because of the angels. [angles is the same word as messager] 11 But here is how things are for those who belong to the Lord. Woman is not independent of man. And man is not independent of woman. 12 Woman came from man, and man is born from woman. But everything comes from God." so, because of the messengers (maybe Roman spy's) woman should submit, but before God there equal (also seen in Galatians 3;28 " [...] There is no male or female. That’s because you are all one in Christ Jesus. ") Didn't you say that even him spoke positive about a woman in leadership (6:47)? The Bible Canon wasn't set before nicea, but still was relatively uniform centuries before, "Mary Magdalens" gospel was written around 160, so Mary Magdalen was already dead, maybe that's why it's not in the Bible... I think you don't need to advocate for a Bible were the letters of one of the most important apostle are cut out (btw they were written around 50-60 so very close to Christ) and an later forgery is added in in other to have a egalitarian view of Christianity. You explained the sexist society in which Christ lived and the new testament was written, and if looked in the context of the time at (for example) "there is neither man nor woman for ye are all one in christ" it's pretty much impossible to convince me that God wants woman to have a lower role as man (also don't forget old Testament passages like he story of Deborah). We need to be avare of the historic development of women rights, even secular movements more than an millennia latter (like the French revolution) didn't follow the teachings of God in terms of equality (even seen in the possibility oldest book of the Bible job, as job splits his inheretants among his sons AND his daughters after his suffering, sometime pretty outrages in the patriarchy of that time...)
Most of the books of the Bible were written 100-200 years after Jesus’ supposed death. That would be like me trying to write a book about the moon landing in 1969, but I wasn’t there to witness it myself.
@@down-to-earth-mystery-school thats factually wrong: Gosple of Luke was written between 60 and 90 after christ birth; mark was written between 45 and 70; mattew was written between 80-90; the letters of paul were written between 48 and 100 (acording to liberal scolars); even the late gosple of john is dated between 67 and 100. So even if you only beliefe liberal/sceptical scolars the books of the new testament were written between 15 to 73 Jears after the cross, not 100 to 200...
those who believe God said women should submit obey and be silent are often very judgemental and even rude in how they react to other christians who believe that God can gift women to any ministry, yes, even preach or pastor, if called to it. And just to show an example of how vicious pat/comp can be in their judgement towards those who believe in mutuality let me share this with you---- There is a certain woman who is a highly respected teacher of women in the southern baptist church. She believes that women should not preach/pastor or teach men and has very harsh words towards women who do as in they need to check if they are saved and need to repent. She influences many women. In a youtube video about women attending seminary she discussed if women should attend seminary. She allowed that woman could attend seminary but with certain restrictions as to what classes they could take. As in they should not take classes preparing for pastoring or preaching..fine... that is her opinion BUT here is the egregious part................. She went on to declare that any women taking classes meant for pastors/preachers even though that woman might never pastor or preach was just like someone learning how to do abortions even though they may never perform one. She labeled woman who who want to learn more of God and service to Him by taking those classes ACCOMPLICES TO MURDER ?!?!?!?!!!!!!!! She added that the seminary allowing women to take these classes was sinning and needed to repent!!!!!!
Interesting comments but I feel the need to remind peeps that all the stories that make up the Bible have been written by men, translated by men and compiled into a Bible by men and stories were picked and thrown out by men who were hundreds of years after any versions were first writ, decided upon not to present some fully accurate collection for the general public, but with intention of their own based on their own positions in their day and age
You forgot to include Ephesians 5:21which states: ".... submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.". Kjv. Or: "Submit yourselves one to another out of reverence to Christ." NIV This is the key verse that everyone forgets. It is only one of the "one another"; scriptures in the New Testament. There are over 50 "one another" scriptures in the NT. Are they all referring to just men , or just women?????!!??? Study it out. As you pointed out, yhe earliest Church was house church. Perhaps two or three families coming together for a time of "doctrine, breaking of bread, prayers and fellowship". ( See Acts 2:42). As you study and present your videos on the subject of patriarchy, move on to Christian History and check out the following people in that beautiful history: Bishop Brigid of Ireland, Bishop Theodora who lived in Turkey, Hildegard of Bingen, even Anne Hutchinson and Mary Dyer. Fascinating Christian women in a very fascinating History. Thanks again for s great channel.....I look forward to more!!! Sister Monique 🙂🙏🌷💗
Christians follow the old testment. But Christ abolish the old laws and implemented the new ones. That was why He was persecuted by some sects of jews (who follow the torah/old testement).
The older I get, the more I tend to lean on Paul's side of the isle. This video, for example in trying to elevate certain writings to the level of scriptural canon, did nothing to change that.
@@Anonymoususer08 A glistening serpent, eh? ;) There are two reasons, the first being that men tend to be more stern in upholding faith as an unchanging constant in the sea of time (if that's something you value), and secondly that (spiritual) women generally do not want to lead. As a young man who has never been very keen on taking on a societal leadership role either, I've gotten a lot of "stop hiding", "step up", "fulfill your duty", "we need you" and "make your ancestors proud" comments over the years, from women of all age groups (never men though). It's gotten to the point where I'm wondering if I should actually do something about that and adjust my life accordingly. Certainly not by becoming a minister, that ship has sailed. But the internet offers many avenues to try and leave an influence.
@@LaVerite-Gaming whether you want to lead is up to you and God, it seems the Bible upholds men to a higher standard so I could see why you would consider it
And the older I get, the more intolerant of nonsense I become. The sin-filled, male-entitlement culture of the day (all of history, actually) infiltrated the church so then, we move away from the teachings of Christ to the advancement of males. Wives submit, I don't permit a woman to teach, women be silent - and yes indeedy, this is for all time (hint: it's not). This perversion made Christianity just one more way to control and sideline women - and it's all rubbish. You men can have you conservative religion and sit in your empty churches and tell yourselves that you're the only ones right. I'll take Christ over this nonsense.
5:58 this contradicts scripture and of this story is true Peter was right. And if Mary really was a follower of Jesus she would know better. But the devil was busy back then too dividing women based on feelings and culture. “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing-if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.” 1 Timothy 2:11-15 NIV This wasn’t to lessen women in the church but protect them from disorder and themselves
I belive that all three guys origene Albert magnus and Tertulian are just Church whrighters and origene is an heretic and Albert magnus is not a Saint for our Church and the leadership in our Church for woman is quit aloud in monasteries for woman , the nuns are educated in theologie like priests even and are aloud in the High Alttair as servents for the priests celebrants and the Saint woman are venerated and first of all the Mother of God even aren't priests or deacons or bishops are nuns wich are preieching and teachers women wich are give religion lessons for the children , and in your Church wich i belive is a protestant Church You don't have the sacraments and the centre of whorship is the preaching so You have this now so You acheeved this two ? So why are You bouthering to make womon to be consacreted and do the sacraments If this is not the central of your liturgical life ? Why You want to destroy others Church ?
6:40 vs 8:04. You contradicted yourself there. At 6:40 you say that Paul mentioned many women whom he worked with and whom he approved as leaders in the church and then you say that Paul was only a patriarchal leader? Did he write in his letter about the women he didn't rebuke for being leaders. Paul actually said that many of those women were really good Christians and really good readers. At 8:04 you take two passages while failing to mention how at 6:40 you stated many female coworkers of Paul who were women and leaders in congregations. Why would Paul approve of female leaders and work with them if he was a the man who didn't like women to speak in Church? Plus the other passage you mentioned and this is approved by many theologians is about a group of women who were being rude in church and speaking while it was someone else's turn to speak. You also completely forgot that after the other passage Paul approves of women prophecying and praying which probably happened at Church too. You're therefore not mentioning the whole passage from where you took those and you also forgot. Why did you forget that Paul approved and wrote about these women whom he held in high regard? Why did you forget the whole chapter in which Paul wrote those things? Did you know the full context of the letter to the Corinthians? Why do you mention women whom Paul held in high regard as Christians and Church leaders? Why did you forget who told us about the women who were leaders at 6:40? Kind of odd to forget who tells us about female leaders in the early church unless 8:04 was the point you were trying to promote? This video also lacks exegesis of the Bible text and knowing of the context to which Paul wrote his letters while holding those female leaders to a high degree. I've read a whole book about this subject written by two conservative Christian women and everything I said here is mentioned also in that book. Referring to the book and writers is not necessary hear unless you know Finnish language. Anyway the name is Paimenuus, ihmisarvo ja sukupuoli written by Soili Haverinen and Mailis Janatuinen. Pastorhip, human worth and sex. In English. My bad translation since the books isn't available in English.
1 Cor 14 says something about women being silent, which contradicts what Paul said in the same letter at 1 Cor 11 with something like women can pray and make prophecies (albeit with head coverings). I think that's what you're talking about. Some scholars have argued that the line in 1 Cor 14 was added later I think For Paul saying "women be silent" but also praising women preachers (like Phoebe, Priscilla, Junia) I don't think that's the video creator's fault for the contradiction, but Paul's own. He did contradict himself quite a bit, as another commenter said. For example: > 1 Cor 7:8-9 vs 1 Tim 4:1-3 (Paul advises against marriage but says you can only if you are really lustful, in the other he says anyone who tries to dissuade you from marrying is the devil) > Galatians 3:28 v Ephesians and 1 Cor 7:20-21 (says there's no longer slaves, but also says slaves must obey masters in a Christian household and never outright condemns slavery but treats it as normal) And although Paul respected some women, he also wrote down some sexist stuff which influenced many Church leaders down the line. He may have respected some female preachers, but many people I've known have chosen to ignore that in favour of what else he said and that has made a lot of harm
@@DilutedH2SO4 Part 11 PAUL STATES THAT WOMEN SHOULD BE SILENT As in all the churches of the saints, the women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church. -excerpt 1 Corinthians 14 In this matter Paul speaks of the 'law'. There is a small possibility that he is referring to a Roman or local law. If not, then Paul is stating that Christian women were still under the Old Covenant laws. Yet there was no Old Covenant law that states that women should be silent. Then the daughters of Zelophehad...came forward. They stood before Moses, before Eleazar the priest, before the leaders, and all the congregation at the entrance of the tent of meeting, saying, “Our father died in the wilderness, yet he was not among the group of those who gathered together against the Lord, in the group of Korah; but he died in his own sin, and he had no sons. Why should the name of our father be withdrawn from among his family simply because he had no son? Give us property among our father’s brothers.” So Moses brought their case before the Lord. Then the Lord said to Moses, “The daughters of Zelophehad are right about their statements. You shall certainly give them hereditary property among their father’s brothers... -excerpts Numbers 27 These women were not rebuked, even though they spoke before everyone, including Moses. What they asked for was granted to them, because God agreed with them.
Sorry but how can we pick and choose scripture that we don’t agree with ? The Bible states many things that don’t sit well with a variety of people. If everyone could salad bar scripture there would be no scripture left.
9:33 When has Jesus established the egalitarian model? So many baseless assumptions that try to fit Gods order in a post-christian culture. Become who you are, it is joyfull to be a women, it is joyfull to be a man.
he first showed himself to the woman after the reurection; God always saw woman and men equal, look at the end of hiob, debora or the letter to the galatians.
@@oreocarlton3343 debora lead a army into victory, and were not just equal in soul, besides this, if men and woman are equal in souls, why not in eathly roles? in the time of paul the seperation of men/woman roles were nessecary to not make the message any more hatet than it already was. (look at titus 2)
Then if the Bible is the word of God, why would there be scripture that contradicts what God says? Are you saying that, because men put it together, that is is not the word of God?
Don’t look deep into it. Of course most of the bible is the word of God, but because of it being translated by men there’s faults that likely contradict his word.
That’s exactly what we are saying, men wrote the book to establish their power and dominance, over women and over anyone else in the Middle East. There is no word of God, God is a myth
1 I agree with the thesis of the video But I would like to add that the OT itself similarly upholds women in high regard For example Miriam or Mary sister of moses is called a prophetess in Exodus 15:20 And Deborah was both a prophet and was appointed as a judge to Israel (She comes third in judges in chapter 4) Esther has a whole book about her And if you're non protestant Judith (received in orthodox and Catholic communions) she literally stopped an invasion by beheading the general 2 1:07 not true Modern scholarship has already proved that wrong When one reads Matthew's birth narrative he will know that the king at that time was Herod the great (indicated by the end of Matthew 2) who died before the year zero He was probably born between 4 and 6 BCE 3 4:11 not menstrual blood that's an assumption on the part of the author I am not sure about the whole menstruation thing I think I need citations However my favorite illustration would be that the first witnesses of the tomb were women Mary Magdalene in particular was given the title apostle to the apostles by the church (read John 20 Matthew 28 Luke 24 and mark 16) He also taught women and allowed them to be his followers (even unto the cross) (read the passion narratives which are the chapters preceding the resurrection accounts ) I really like st John Chrysostom's comment on that one in particular "But the women stood by the Cross, and the weaker sex then appeared the manlier John 19:25; so entirely henceforth were all things transformed." All men left Jesus Peter denied him and Judas betrayed him it was only John who remained It's also interesting to point out that through the incarnation Jesus made Mary a woman the most honored of God's creatures (read Luke 1) 5:10 yeah that heretical piece of gnostic fan fiction 5:42 not quite most of the non canonical christian literature (excluding authors like Ignatius and clement and the author of the Didache) from the time is pretty late and only a handful are dated to the beginning of the second century like the epistle of Barnabas and I am not aware of any work from that period that places much emphasis on Mary Magdalene However if that was true that would show that her character was incredibly popular among christians from a very early point 5:59 if you actually read the gospel of Mary Magdalene for your self you would agree with peter It turned out Jesus was lying to him the whole time and he gave the secrets of all history to Mary but not him even though he is supposed to be the chief apostle 6:28 assuming that by that time the three office model of ecclesiastical government was already set in place I don't think women were ever priests I am not aware of any document that says otherwise however within that division it's very likely that women were allowed to be deaconesses Paul sent Phoebe with the letter to the Romans and he called her διάκονον which means deacon Read Romans 16 6:46 it's not clear what was Priscilla's position Was she a missionary like thecla Or what No one knows As for junia well there are many ways to translate Romans 16:7 none of them says that she is foremost among the apostles English Standard Version 7 Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles, and they were in Christ before me. The ESV seems to favor that she is not an apostle New Revised Standard 7 Greet Andronicus and Junia, my relatives who were in prison with me; they are prominent among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was. The NRSV seems to favor that she is an apostle (Not 100 percent certain) It might mean that she is well known in the company of the apostles However it is still a good indication that women played huge roles in the church at the time even though they may have not been priestesses 6:57 unconvincing explanation Men could still do whatever they wanted as it was there property first and foremost 7:50 a consistent problem with the video this far was lack of citations what keeps me from getting lost is my knowledge of the debates around these issues as well as a decent grasp of scripture Note is that supposed to be celsus 8:23 here is where we diverge SIGNIFICANTLY I don't think one would read Paul and assume he was a woman hater For a deeper analysis of Paul read NT wright Or better if you're a lazy bum like me You would find his lectures on RU-vid very helpful (I don't entirely agree with everything NT wright on everything but he has a PHD and .. I don't) For 1 Timothy 2:12 It seems to contradict Paul in other areas as I have previously noted Paul ordained female deaconesses and had "female coworkers" like Priscilla (likely a missionary) So I don't think Paul meant that women can't teach at all but that they can't be priestesses This seems to fit well with the rest of scripture The OT contains no mention of female priests and neither does The NT at any point ascribe the office of presbyter or bishop to a woman 8:49 this is funny because Paul from whom the doctrine of original sin is based never ascribed the fall to eve but to Adam Read Romans 5:12-21 The producer of the video seems to be reading things into Paul without offering a citation (not an accusation) Let's take a bit to appreciate Paul's treatment of women 1 Corinthians 7:4 Given that at the time extramarital affairs for men were fair game unless it was with a married woman This is goes above the standard of the time Galatians 3:28 9:21 I agree with Paul Given that men were the sole caretakers of the family at that time it makes sense to ask women to submit to their husbands at the time because the only jobs available only hired men (mostly) 9:31 framing it as Paul VS Jesus makes no sense As we get our accounts of Jesus from people who upheld Paul as an apostle The author of Luke acts in particular calls him the instrument through which god sent the gospel to the gentiles The authors of Mark and Matthew and John also seem to exhibit influence of Pauline theology in their works especially surrounding the mosaic law Read John 1:15-18 as an example Peter and Paul😳 Why peter 🙄 9:39 I am not sure of the exact figure but it's in reference to the apostolic and early sub apostolic periods not beyond that 9:57 When in doubt blame Constantine and Nicaea Anyways that definitely wasn't a turning point We have succession lists of leaders and bishops of particular cities like Rome (the chair of st peter) and Alexandria (the chair st mark) or any other place we never heard of a female bishop mentioned by Eusebius And all the succession lists we have from irenaeus and Eusebius and later authors don't include women Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 3) If women were allowed to be bishops at some point it definitely wasn't at the time st clement wrote his epistle 10:23 Nicaea didn't have a canon list Second the debate in the fourth century wasn't about books like the four gospels or Paul's letters John's epistle and Peter's first epistle but about the book called antilegomena by Eusebius which are Hebrews 2nd Peter revelation James and jude And it wasn't really confirmed by councils as the councils that spoke on the issue were merely regional and had no control over the whole church Note there is a reason why the letters of Paul never came into question at the councils and that is because every major author from the time of clement bishop of Rome in 90ad till the time of Augustine had accepted them as authoritative even our first ever canon list by the heretic marcion was mostly made of Pauline epistles As for the gospel of Mary Magdalene it was never heald in authority by any major author at the time and it also was written in the mid second century and thus couldn't have been quoted by clement or Ignatius or Polycarp or any other major author not to mention that it was an obvious forgery that didn't go back to Mary unlike Paul's authentic letters which were confirmed by people who met him Ie clement
@@patricial.321 Well ........ I would consider myself a feminist so ....😅 But I understand that maybe this label means different things to you and maybe you would assume a different stance if you lived where I live
Jesus was a male so were all his apostles, its you who sees patriarchy as a mistreatment of women, there is nothing inherently anti-women in patriarchy.
@@waltervondervogelweide if that verse is interpreted that way, Bible would be ok with homosexuality since it's defined by our bodies which it isn't. Patriarchy comes from God's laws, even if you aren't a Christian there is sill leftover wisdom about the virtues of patriarchy, when we get new bodies there won't be men and women but for now we can only use these bodies under God's laws
You do realize that it was PAUL who referred to Junia as his fellow kinsman, right? And commended Phebe to the church in Rome? Paul did NOT believe women could not teach or lead; it was PAUL who said: "Henceforth know we NO man AFTER THE FLESH." The "woman" ("women") Paul would not suffer to teach were not "women" ACCORDING TO THE FLESH, they were the spiritually immature, the ones who had not (yet) been "delivered of the child." PAUL (a male, according to THE FLESH) spoke of his own "travail in birth" when he ceased to be "a child" and became "a man." This is exactly what JESUS told all of his MALE disciples that they would go through in John 16. (We see the same language used in the OT by Isaiah, Jeremiah and Zechariah.) However, much of the church has failed to understand Paul because we've failed to understand scripture as we've failed to rightly divide the word of truth through the power of the Holy Spirit. Paul used Adam and Eve (and the marriage relationship) to teach much deeper spiritual truths about Christ (THE man/husband) and the Church (THE woman/wife). When it comes to Christ and the Church, we are all typified in "the woman," typified in not only Eve, but Mary (the mother of Jesus), in Paul's writings. Paul was no misogynist. Certainly, many who followed were and they weren't spiritually mature enough to discern Paul's letters properly.... so we actually ended up with a LOT of "women" leading the church, spiritually speaking. 😮
Okay, firstly do not use Gnostic books. The theories of them being written at the same time of the Gospels is pure speculation done in Favor of Gnosticism. If you know those "secret teachings" of Mary and you know what Jesus Actually taught, it is not hard to see that Jesus never spoke those "secret teachings".
Several factual errors: The woman who washed Jesus' feet is not identified as a prostitute but only as a "sinner" in Luke. In John, it is Mary Magdalene who anointed Jesus' feet with a costly perfume. It was Pope Gregory who later conflated the two accounts and in his overactive medieval imagination assumed that "sinner" must have meant "prostitute." The pastoral epistles where those misogynistic statements come from are known to be forgeries written after Paul's death. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-srdzX6n9k2I.htmlsi=WUX0X0jiF39rdkmH The Biblical canon was not decided by church councils but was a ground up process. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-2ALK1j-v_RA.htmlsi=UJumdz2dMGbFZxNS
You have your Mary's confused. It was Mary of Bethany who anointed Jesus in John, not Mary Magdalene. This happened at dinner in their home in Bethany after Jesus raised Lazarus. The sinful woman washed Jesus feet at the home of Simon the Pharisee. Two different dinners. Two different women. But neither one was the Magdalene.
Belief is so cheap, its a part of the monkey left brain algorithm of the mind, in Buddhist and Taoist practice this is some of the first lessons, to understand how the mind unfolds and creates perseption, understanding the dependant arising of our biology , the veil of Nature. Abrahamic ideas stay very shallow, from what I understand it's just Bakti and karma yoga, but nothing further. Definitely nothing deeper, no Jhana, no sunyata 😢
Women, like men, are made in the likeness and image of God. And He has given us sound minds. In Matthew 23 Jesus rebukes religious leaders (men of His time) who were taking advantage of the flock and flaunting their wealth. Jesus described these men as hypocrites and blind guides. Instead of condemning God’s daughters, it would do today’s male leaders well to heed the words of our Savior, take the plank out of their eyes, and repent for the ongoing spiritual abuses in their assemblies.
Again, women in leadership has been around now for sixty years in my country. Everwhere that occurs, the flock of Christ seem literally not to show up. And the Christ that is preached is different from the one of the martyrs. Should we blame immoral male leadership for that too?
Ah yes, and the Catholic Church run by men that took advantage of so many young boys is certainly far more 'stable', lol. The track record of male leadership is abysmal
Paul hated women. He argued so much with Peter about the place of women that Peter sent Paul out to share the word. I suspect that Paul’s “great unnamed sin” was homosexuality. We will never know for sure. I do not consider his books as representative of Christ, only of Paul’s own views. My belief stops at John.
Not a big fan of Paul myself. Some serious false teachings. It is so strange how at the end of Romans Paul commends a woman first, and in some detail (Phoebe). Also other women. At other places, maybe we see the culture seeping in. At other places perhaps forgeries, as it's so far off from Romans 16 and multiple women commended by name along with the men.
You don’t answer to me ,the lady that made this video or yourself, but you will answer to God and that’s a pretty lame excuse for treating his daughters less than
Wow you're quite troubled with hearing different ideas . How much do you actually know about church history? Where have you gathered your information from?
