palmera wrote:At the Harvard Divinity School, Francois Bavon (Frothingham Professor of History of Religions) as documented this through a fourth century manuscript describing the acts of the apostle Philip.
Even a
contemporary account would not necessarily be reliable, but I for one would not spend any research time on anything much later. This is not evidence.
The texts describes females functioning as priestesses in some early Christian Churches.
There are not even priests in Christianity. This
cannot be evidence.
Also, some of the apocryphal gospels (Philip, Mary for example) describe this as well.
They are not evidence. One can find apocryphal tales about almost anything to do with Christianity within two hundred years of the resurrection. Real Christianity was and indeed remains a very powerful message that opposes wicked people, and it is naive to suppose that the wicked will not traduce it whenever and wherever it is discussed, unless they are barred from debate on the grounds of their behaviour.
There are many sources which you can actually google search which describe early Christian communities and churches democratically led by both women and men.
That is palpable nonsense. The most extraordinary fact in all history (imv) is that Christianity's own record ceases for a very long time at the end of Luke's Acts. There is nothing at all, bar a single letter reputed to come from Clement of Rome, and perhaps the
Didache, that is accounted as genuinely Christian by
any supposedly Christian body for at least forty years after that. There is no major work that can be identified as being in agreement with the Tanach and the work of the apostles until Wycliffe, many centuries after Luke.
Also of note, a female, Philoumene, led a Roman theological school in the second century.
One must note that all the letter writers of the NT but James warned of false teachers already in the church as they wrote. This is therefore not evidence.
Further, Romans 16:1 mentions Pheobe as a deacon in the church at Cenchrea.
Helpers (deacons) were not permitted to teach men, as far as we know, and Paul, who mentioned Phoebe, would not have approved any woman who taught men.
Also of note, Paul refers to Euodia, Priscilla, Junia and Syntyche as co-workers,
That does not make them teachers.
and Junia as esteemed among the apostles.
Junias must have been a man, as Paul would not have described a female apostle as esteemed.
Also, early Christian gnostic texts
That's a contradiction in terms.
Also from Harvard, Karen L. King, a professor of New Testament Studies and History of Ancient Christianity cites the roles of women as leaders in the early churches.
That is not possible. All the early female leadership that can be reasonably proved is in the Bible, and that is very firmly against teaching of men by women. One can very reasonably state that, if an organisation permits that practice, it cannot be Christian.
There are those, particularly today, who wish to weaken society by promoting women above men so that they can more easily manipulate it for their own ends. They are, imv, ultimately anti-social and destructive of society, and will therefore be resisted by those with the will and the courage to defend society. The last bastion that hinders them is of course the church, and they lie and mock to try to gain mastery over it.
