re: The "Church" of England

Enjoy your immigration

quote:

---

(No message)

---

Upvoted No Message because you and I probably feel the same way and you beat me to it.

These people are sick.

I don't even consider myself an organized religious person yet I believe and this is straight blasphemy.

CoE has been conquered and all of Great Britain is following suit.

Ironic thing is, once the jihadists take over, this thing is being stoned to death or thrown off a building or burned alive.

What Will the English Patriots do?

The chair of St. Augustine has been vacant for almost 500 years. This woman is merely the latest in a long line of cosplayers to the archbishopric of Canterbury.

Not even Henry vIII could have imagined what his church has become.

quote:

---

quote:

---

An obvious pseudepigrapha

---

I don't think that's obvious at all.

---

Fair enough, but you may not have looked at the data or you may presuppose univocality.

The point of my earlier post was to provide just one simple example based on the OP’s post. Paul, throughout what scholars call the “seven genuine letters” of Paul refers to prominent women financing his operation and the churches and women spreading the gospel message. He calls Junia, a woman, “noteworthy amongst the apostles”.

Question for you: do you think Paul would endorse women apostles - noteworthy apostles - and then at the same time would prohibit a woman to teach? That’s literally what an apostle does - teach others of the gospel message.

Based on your comment, I doubt you ever considered this or did any research on the subject. Actually, my post was for people like you.

You should know that Ephesians and Colossians are called by Christian scholars as “deutero-Pauline” epistles because they weren’t written by Paul (or the guy who wrote the genuine seven) but are very much similar and compatible with Paul’s message. Most scholars think these two epistles were forged in Paul’s name by Paul’s own disciples.

On the other hand, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus are all concerned about second century church issues, using grammar and vocabulary very different to Paul’s genuine letters, and these three flat out contradict Paul’s genuine letters. I didn’t figure this out. It is the scholarly consensus. Now, I’m careful not to make the argument from authority, but I’ve read scholarly works on the subject matter and to me, the evidence is convincing.

quote:

---

I believe it's more likely that he was addressing a specific situation (or even an individual woman).

---

How can you say that? When he says he does not permit (a) woman to teach, he doesn’t use an article “the” nor does he name any names of individuals. It’s very obvious he’s taking in very general terms. I honestly do not think you have read 1 Timothy Chapter 2.

quote:

---

Or are you saying there are older manuscripts that specifically dispute the later inclusion of this text?

---

Besides style, grammar, and vocabulary differences, these non-Pauline forgeries focus on issues that affected the second century church - including a hierarchy of bishops and deacons - and heresies. In these forgeries, the author sets the qualifications for bishops as a husband with only one wife and with submissive and obedient children. Remember the real Paul who wrote that Christians shouldn’t get married or have children because the world is about to end and they were in the final days before the final judgement,

Lastly, Ignatius, Polycarp, and Clement - some early church fathers - referenced Paul’s letters in their own letters in the late first century and early second century. Not a single reference was made that survived that we have of any church father quoting or referencing 1 Tim, 2 Tim, or Titus before the late second century.

Again - I didn’t figure this stuff out. I am repeated what I’ve read of the works of experts in the field because I am convinced by their arguments and the evidence they present. The easiest thing for you though is to simply read the epistles, and determine if it makes sense for Paul on one hand to say don’t get married and don’t have kids, and then also give qualifications to be a Christian bishop as being married and having kids. Ask if it makes sense for Paul to endorse women apostles spreading the word of Jesus, and at the same time condemning women for teaching.

frick that.

I only go to mega churches with a good light show and no WOKE bullshite

quote:

---

all these churches are screwed due to openly ordaining and/or marrying homosexuals and/or LGBTQ agenda.

episcopal
anglican
lutheran
northern baptist
a sect of presbyterians
and now methodists if i recall the latest schism in that denomination

---

The Reformation and it's consequences have been a disaster for the Christian faith.

Usually the ink you inject into the water to misdirect, obfuscate, and confuse is typical Gnostic piffle. Here you’re simply taking Holy Scripture as it is and claim it says what it doesn’t say.

A husband and wife, or sisters and brothers working with an Apostle to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ (much like Lazarus and his sisters Martha and Mary supported Jesus) does not justify or support female ordination. Neither does a local Christian community meeting In a private residence make the homeowners ordained deacons, presbyters or bishops.

Someone prominent among the Apostles-even renowned among them for their faith and labors-isn’t an Apostle, nor are they automatically ordained ministers.

The giant in the back scratching his head?

He's thinking what a damn mess this is and how did get here.