Posted on 07/08/2006 9:23:38 AM PDT by WestTexasWend
He's not the head of you? He's suppose to be according to Scripture. That's the Word of God.
Further clarification: My husband isn't a leader in an organized religion.
Yes, I'm in agreement with the Book of Ephesians. What more do you want?
No, you are placing more reliance on your ability to correctly interpret and understand the Word of God. You are claiming for yourself an infallibility that you are denying to the collective body of bishops who even you must admit hold their authority by apostolic design.
What does that passage have to do with 1 Timothy 2:11-12?
And what reliance upon the Word of God are you placing when you ignore the entire Book of Timothy?
Interesting comment. I am about half way through Harvey Mansfield's book "Manliness" and I came upon his main thrust today, which is similar to yours. Instead of denying nature and insisting on gender neutrality (similar to anti-gravity in its concepts). His logic highlights the irrationality of the radical feminists strategy based on Nitzsche and Marx and offers a balance based on the gifts of men and women. That is how I interpret the scriptures when it says the two shall be as one. I am an engineer by training and I am constantly awed by God's creative abilities and efficiency of design. If He could have done it with one sex He would have. There must be a deeper reason and I think you are close to the answer.
Again, I refer to my first post #9 in this thread.
First one verse and now the entire book? I have given you an alternative interpretation of that verse. Are you calling to question my sincerity when I say that is how I understand that verse?
I think it has a lot to do with it. Don't you?
1 Timothy 2:11-12. Waiting... waiting... waiting... Marajade ignores, ignores, ignores...
Did you read my post #9?
Marajade, would you mind putting a little snippet of a quote in here? I'm not a mind reader.
What? That women shouldn't be priests? Or that men should be married priests?
Post #9It is you who say that the Church is overlooking 1 Timothy. Again, I have shown another interpretation of 1 Timothy 1:3 that in in complete conformity with the discipline of priestly celibacy. You may say that we are incorrect in that reading but not that we are ignoring it unless you are maintaining that I and all Catholics down the ages are insincere and lying when we give that interpretation. Is that your intention?
So the Church cites first timothy when it comes to reason why women can't be priests but it overlooks timothy when it says that priests should be married. Okie dokie.
Marajade, answer the question please. Tell us your interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:11-12 and if you agree with it or not. It's very simple. Not gonna kill ya!
"Again, I have shown another interpretation of 1 Timothy 1:3..."
The Bible I'm reading in relation to that scripture has nothing to do with Priests being celibate.
So, I shouldn't argue with the Pope?
I never said that it did. Priestly celibacy is a matter of extra-biblical apostolic tradition. You are the one that is maintaining that the Bible says priests must be married. I have shown another interpretation of the verse you cited that is consistent with priestly celibacy. Are you questioning my sincerity when I say that this is what I believe the verse means? If not, say that I am wrong if you must but cease claiming that I and the Catholic Church are ignoring St. Paul's teaching in 1 Timothy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.