The Theist Thread - Let's Share

darrenl wrote:

Jesus also never said that they could be priests either...so maybe it is your interpretation that is incorrect? So that puts you in the position of saying why they should be knowing full well that there is no scriptural basis to support it. Jesus clearly made no woman apostles, nor did he choose a woman as a pope..DESPITE there being a perfectly good ones all over the place to fill those roles: Elizabeth, Mary, etc. It is interesting though, how prominant woman are in the Gospels: Woman at the well is first one to know he is Messiah, first ones to see risen Christ are woman. Very significant.

Jesus may have made no woman apostles, but how many women did Judiasm make priests? Why is this considered an act of theological importance and not just Jesus acting consistent with being a Jew of this time period?

NSMike wrote:

In which case, to bring this circle back around, it's up to the authority of his particular religion to decide what to do with him, officially. Catholics are really the only ones who exercise that kind of authority, though.

So do Mormons. Episcopalians I think technically could if they wanted to.

CheezePavilion wrote:
darrenl wrote:

Jesus also never said that they could be priests either...so maybe it is your interpretation that is incorrect? So that puts you in the position of saying why they should be knowing full well that there is no scriptural basis to support it. Jesus clearly made no woman apostles, nor did he choose a woman as a pope..DESPITE there being a perfectly good ones all over the place to fill those roles: Elizabeth, Mary, etc. It is interesting though, how prominant woman are in the Gospels: Woman at the well is first one to know he is Messiah, first ones to see risen Christ are woman. Very significant.

Jesus may have made no woman apostles, but how many women did Judiasm make priests? Why is this considered an act of theological importance and not just Jesus acting consistent with being a Jew of this time period?

That's just the point...Jesus did not act consistently as a Jew in his time period, specifically when it came to women. One only needs to take a look at the Samaritan woman at the well interaction to conclude this. Considering both of those classes of people (Samaritans and woman) were less than second class in that time period, this speaks volumes theologically.

Darrenl - Jesus also didn't say only men should be priests/leaders/bishops/popes. And it is with my conscience that I can call out this interpretation as wrong. It is not a sin to do so.

Anyway I see talking about this is like not seeing the forest from the trees. Apologetics does us no good. When all you have to know is that Jesus wants us to be good. This is why I ask if you have other opinions besides these theocratic ones.

darrenl wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
darrenl wrote:

Jesus also never said that they could be priests either...so maybe it is your interpretation that is incorrect? So that puts you in the position of saying why they should be knowing full well that there is no scriptural basis to support it. Jesus clearly made no woman apostles, nor did he choose a woman as a pope..DESPITE there being a perfectly good ones all over the place to fill those roles: Elizabeth, Mary, etc. It is interesting though, how prominant woman are in the Gospels: Woman at the well is first one to know he is Messiah, first ones to see risen Christ are woman. Very significant.

Jesus may have made no woman apostles, but how many women did Judiasm make priests? Why is this considered an act of theological importance and not just Jesus acting consistent with being a Jew of this time period?

That's just the point...Jesus did not act consistently as a Jew in his time period, specifically when it came to women. One only needs to take a look at the Samaritan woman at the well interaction to conclude this. Considering both of those classes of people (Samaritans and woman) were less than second class in that time period, this speaks volumes theologically.

That's about a cultural prejudice, not a religious tradition.

I think church should be separated from religion, as it seems to get in the way of it.

CheezePavilion wrote:
darrenl wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
darrenl wrote:

Jesus also never said that they could be priests either...so maybe it is your interpretation that is incorrect? So that puts you in the position of saying why they should be knowing full well that there is no scriptural basis to support it. Jesus clearly made no woman apostles, nor did he choose a woman as a pope..DESPITE there being a perfectly good ones all over the place to fill those roles: Elizabeth, Mary, etc. It is interesting though, how prominant woman are in the Gospels: Woman at the well is first one to know he is Messiah, first ones to see risen Christ are woman. Very significant.

Jesus may have made no woman apostles, but how many women did Judiasm make priests? Why is this considered an act of theological importance and not just Jesus acting consistent with being a Jew of this time period?

That's just the point...Jesus did not act consistently as a Jew in his time period, specifically when it came to women. One only needs to take a look at the Samaritan woman at the well interaction to conclude this. Considering both of those classes of people (Samaritans and woman) were less than second class in that time period, this speaks volumes theologically.

That's about a cultural prejudice, not a religious tradition.

In Jesus' time, the two were virtually indistinguishable, which is one of many reasons His teachings and interactions were so controversial.

darrenl wrote:

Indeed. The main rift we're seeing is again, sola scriptura. Here's hoping that we resolve this issue sometime in the future and that we come together again. In the meantime, we can still celebrate those things we do have in common.

I am not sure this is a fair assessment. There are plenty of reasons why the Church Universal will never reconcile fully, and Sola Scriptura is only one of a myriad of reasons. As I have stated before, there are plenty of Protestant denominations that do not hold to Sola Scriptura and would welcome reunification if other issues were resolved such as the primacy of Rome and the Pope. As it currently stands, I can think of at least five or six Protestant faiths (including my own) that, by church structure, liturgy, foundation, and creed, could never accept Roman primacy without completely destroying who they are as a community of faith.

darrenl wrote:

Jesus also never said that they could be priests either...so maybe it is your interpretation that is incorrect? So that puts you in the position of saying why they should be knowing full well that there is no scriptural or traditional basis to support it. Jesus clearly made no woman apostles, nor did he choose a woman as a pope..DESPITE there being a perfectly good ones all over the place to fill those roles: Elizabeth, Mary, etc. It is interesting though, how prominant woman are in the Gospels: Woman at the well is first one to know he is Messiah, first ones to see risen Christ are woman. Very significant.

The bolded part is not clear at all. The Orthodox Church and many Protestant denominations view the office of the "apostle" to be dynamic and ongoing through the history of the Church. It was not relegated to only 12 men (13 if you count Matthias or 14 if you count Paul). To that end, some Churches believe that there were, in fact, women apostles including Mary Magdalene, Tabitha and Junia. Since almost all theologians believe that the 12 apostles represented the 12 tribes of Israel, it would make sense in the cultural context for Christ to choose men to serve in that role. However, there is nothing to indicate the dynamic role of apostle (which is from Koine Greek meaning "directed messenger") was restricted to those within the human life time of Christ (e.g. Paul of Tarsus was an apostle, made so after the Resurrection) nor that only men could fulfill the role of that office. The idea that Christ only meant for men to be apostles is supposition at best.

darrenl wrote:

As nice as it would be to do a popular vote on all doctrinal issues, it just doesn't work that way. Jesus left us a church to guide us, not a system by which to vote on things we like or don't like.

While not the direct democracy stipulated in the discussion, the Church certainly developed doctrine, creed and canonical law based on a parliamentary system. Votes were cast for everything from what constituted a heresy to what manuscripts would be included in the canon. If the Great Church Councils were ever re-established, they most certainly would have the authority to replicate those meetings and again vote on doctrinal issues.

darrenl wrote:

Excommunication is completely supported by Jesus. Take a look at Matthew 18:17. Jesus did't just let things go when you screwed up, he called you on it...but you're right, he did not abandon you when you did and allowed you to return, but it is you who must do the returning. Excommunication is used as a starting point for restoration back to the church.

Just a reminder that excommunication is a function of the church and has no bearing on the salvation of the individual in question. Arius, the first heretic, was excommunicated, but his salvation was never in question.

Mytch wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
darrenl wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
darrenl wrote:

Jesus also never said that they could be priests either...so maybe it is your interpretation that is incorrect? So that puts you in the position of saying why they should be knowing full well that there is no scriptural basis to support it. Jesus clearly made no woman apostles, nor did he choose a woman as a pope..DESPITE there being a perfectly good ones all over the place to fill those roles: Elizabeth, Mary, etc. It is interesting though, how prominant woman are in the Gospels: Woman at the well is first one to know he is Messiah, first ones to see risen Christ are woman. Very significant.

Jesus may have made no woman apostles, but how many women did Judiasm make priests? Why is this considered an act of theological importance and not just Jesus acting consistent with being a Jew of this time period?

That's just the point...Jesus did not act consistently as a Jew in his time period, specifically when it came to women. One only needs to take a look at the Samaritan woman at the well interaction to conclude this. Considering both of those classes of people (Samaritans and woman) were less than second class in that time period, this speaks volumes theologically.

That's about a cultural prejudice, not a religious tradition.

In Jesus' time, the two were virtually indistinguishable, which is one of many reasons His teachings and interactions were so controversial.

I'm not sure I understand how that helps us answer the question of whether there's significance to Jesus making only men apostles.

goman wrote:

Darrenl - Jesus also didn't say only men should be priests/leaders/bishops/popes. And it is with my conscience that I can call out this interpretation as wrong. It is not a sin to do so.

Anyway I see talking about this is like not seeing the forest from the trees. Apologetics does us no good. When all you have to know is that Jesus wants us to be good. This is why I ask if you have other opinions besides these theocratic ones.

That's correct...Jesus did not say that only men should be priests, but his *actions* within the Gospels are quite clear. Fact of the matter is that there is neither any scriptural or traditional indicators nor are there any indicators from Jesus supporting the other position. In this case, there is more evidence for male only priests given what he did and didn't *do* not what he did or didn't say.

Apologetics = "the act of defending a position through the systematic use of reason". Are you not doing the same with your position, i.e. defending the idea of women priests? Not sure why one would think defense of one position "does us no good" but the defense of the other (..specifically the position of women priests...), by implication, "does us good". This kind of defeats the point of debate when both sides are...in fact...performing apologetics for their specific view. It would be really nice to see an argument confronted on it's content and merit, not dismissed based on a misunderstood and misused label.

"Jesus wants us to be good". Jesus wants us to be more than just "good". He wants us to become more like him, which is an incredibly complex and hard thing to propose given a) who he is and b) who we are. "Being good"...whatever the heck that means, if it means anything at all...doesn't cut it.

CheezePavilion wrote:

That's about a cultural prejudice, not a religious tradition.

...then I must ask the question: is the quest for female priest a product of our cultural prejudice?

darrenl wrote:
goman wrote:

Darrenl - Jesus also didn't say only men should be priests/leaders/bishops/popes. And it is with my conscience that I can call out this interpretation as wrong. It is not a sin to do so.

Anyway I see talking about this is like not seeing the forest from the trees. Apologetics does us no good. When all you have to know is that Jesus wants us to be good. This is why I ask if you have other opinions besides these theocratic ones.

That's correct...Jesus did not say that only men should be priests, but his *actions* within the Gospels are quite clear. Fact of the matter is that there is neither any scriptural or traditional indicators nor are there any indicators from Jesus supporting the other position. In this case, there is more evidence for male only priests given what he did and didn't *do* not what he did or didn't say.

When it comes to an issue as important as this, shouldn't we need a *lot* of evidence before deciding Jesus was intending us to take a theological cue from from his actions when there's no scriptural or traditional indicators, not just "more" evidence? Shouldn't there be a 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard in this case?

CheezePavilion wrote:

That's about a cultural prejudice, not a religious tradition.

...then I must ask the question: is the quest for female priest a product of our cultural prejudice?

I would answer no--there's nothing anti-male about it the way those things you described involved prejudice.

This isn't an issue unique to Catholics, they are just among the latest to grapple with it, so take this to be about women clergy in general, or really the response to any large scope change in the broader culture.

darrenl wrote:

...then I must ask the question: is the quest for female priest a product of our cultural prejudice?

Of course. That doesn't make those prejudices wrong, nor does it make them right. Culture, in the broad sense, affects and is affected by beliefs on a number of topics. When culture shift, subculture eventually has to respond. In the broader Culture, over the past century, Feminism happened. Now we need to respond.

There is a saying among Conservative Jews, or at least favored by my Rabbi back home, that "Tradition is change" (the snarky response being "How about some tradition for a change?"). Among Reform Jews, the philosophy is "Tradition gets a vote, not a veto". These religious one-liners represent an attitude to changes in the culture.

Addressing the issue more directly, my personal belief, which probably won't be very popular in this thread, is that the Torah was never meant to represent the Law for all time, rather simply the time in which it was given. There are hints to this if you pay close attention (e.g. compare with regional laws of the time periods, or the story of Zelophehad’s daughters). Knowing human nature, any attempt, even by G-d to inject modern ethical standards into an Iron Age culture would have been rejected, either by those to whom the laws were given, or by their neighbors. If Jews are meant to be a "Light unto the Nations", then it doesn't do any good for the light to be so bright that it blinds. It's the same reason for the expulsion from the Garden: we weren't ready.

CheezePavilion wrote:

When it comes to an issue as important as this, shouldn't we need a *lot* of evidence before deciding Jesus was intending us to take a theological cue from from his actions when there's no scriptural or traditional indicators, not just "more" evidence? Shouldn't there be a 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard in this case?

Well, as Christians we have the doctrine of the Trinity, which has no scriptural indicators at all, yet most Christian denominations are unified by this doctrine. The Trinity only has hints and clues that were interpreted by the same folks who followed this tradition of male only priests. It's inconsistent to say, "well...we trust them for the Trinity, but they're clearly smoking pot for this male only priest stuff." Seems like something else is at play here, and my suspicion is this stems from pressures from modern culture, not from Scripture or Tradition....that is my sense of it.

And how important is this issue? Really? What, 3% of Christian men....if we're lucky...are called to be priests. Some Protestant groups allow women ministers, yet they are still hitting the same recruiting issues as Catholics...last I read anyway. Out of all the issues we have, are we really THAT concerned about something that might effect less than 3% of the Christian population?

Regardless...the Church has already commented on it and they've stated that they don't have the power to do it, even if they wanted to. So...we can debate 'till we're blue in the face, but at the end of the day we'll still be left with the reality that this will probably not come about. So...I suggest we move on.

2 things:

  • An issue ostensibly only affecting a small portion of the population is hardly a good reason to ignore it.
  • Being more inclusive at worst has no affect on the recruitment problem, and at best will help correct it.

I'd say it's vitally important to the future of the Catholic church. It's either that, or allow priests to marry. The number of men willing to take vows of chastity is plummeting.

The intentions at every mass always includes a prayer for the "increase in the vocation to the parish priesthood." The Church can answer its own prayers with one or both of those simple solutions.

darrenl wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

When it comes to an issue as important as this, shouldn't we need a *lot* of evidence before deciding Jesus was intending us to take a theological cue from from his actions when there's no scriptural or traditional indicators, not just "more" evidence? Shouldn't there be a 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard in this case?

Well, as Christians we have the doctrine of the Trinity, which has no scriptural indicators at all, yet most Christian denominations are unified by this doctrine. The Trinity only has hints and clues that were interpreted by the same folks who followed this tradition of male only priests. It's inconsistent to say, "well...we trust them for the Trinity, but they're clearly smoking pot for this male only priest stuff."

No it isn't--all we need to believe that there's a Trinity is that there's a Trinity. In order to believe that because Jesus did not make female apostles we should not ordain female priests, we have to go believing he had a reason for *not* making women apostles.

Seems like something else is at play here, and my suspicion is this stems from pressures from modern culture, not from Scripture or Tradition....that is my sense of it.

The same could be said of Rerum Novarum or The Theology of the Body or Solicitudo Rei Socialis.

NSMike wrote:

I'd say it's vitally important to the future of the Catholic church. It's either that, or allow priests to marry. The number of men willing to take vows of chastity is plummeting.

The intentions at every mass always includes a prayer for the "increase in the vocation to the parish priesthood." The Church can answer its own prayers with one or both of those simple solutions.

I think that if numbers were the problem, simply relaxing chastity policies and doctrine would do more to increase membership than simply extending membership courtesy to women, too. I can't imagine that massively many more women swearing off sex compared to men.

LarryC wrote:
NSMike wrote:

I'd say it's vitally important to the future of the Catholic church. It's either that, or allow priests to marry. The number of men willing to take vows of chastity is plummeting.

The intentions at every mass always includes a prayer for the "increase in the vocation to the parish priesthood." The Church can answer its own prayers with one or both of those simple solutions.

I think that if numbers were the problem, simply relaxing chastity policies and doctrine would do more to increase membership than simply extending membership courtesy to women, too. I can't imagine that massively many more women swearing off sex compared to men.

True. I'd say that they'd best work in combination, but that may be a bit too progressive for a church being led by a pope all teary-eyed for the pre-Vatican II days.

Ugh. Sigh. I miss Pope JP2.

Let's remember: Pope Benedict wasn't exactly an outsider in JPII's Vatican. I wonder if to a large extent the two were of one mind about a lot of issues, it was just convenient for JPII to be all smiles and hugs and Ratzinger to be the enforcer.

Garden Ninja wrote:

Addressing the issue more directly, my personal belief, which probably won't be very popular in this thread, is that the Torah was never meant to represent the Law for all time, rather simply the time in which it was given. There are hints to this if you pay close attention (e.g. compare with regional laws of the time periods, or the story of Zelophehad’s daughters). Knowing human nature, any attempt, even by G-d to inject modern ethical standards into an Iron Age culture would have been rejected, either by those to whom the laws were given, or by their neighbors. If Jews are meant to be a "Light unto the Nations", then it doesn't do any good for the light to be so bright that it blinds. It's the same reason for the expulsion from the Garden: we weren't ready.

While it may not be popular, your statements are exceptionally poignant.

NSMike wrote:

I'd say it's vitally important to the future of the Catholic church. It's either that, or allow priests to marry. The number of men willing to take vows of chastity is plummeting.

The intentions at every mass always includes a prayer for the "increase in the vocation to the parish priesthood." The Church can answer its own prayers with one or both of those simple solutions.

Chastity is not the issue either, if it were the Protestant denominations who allow marrying would not be suffering the same issue of recruiting as the Catholic Church...same thing with the woman priests. No...it's something else.

Garden Ninja wrote:

2 things:

  • An issue ostensibly only affecting a small portion of the population is hardly a good reason to ignore it.
  • Being more inclusive at worst has no affect on the recruitment problem, and at best will help correct it.

...using the word "inclusive" seems to prove my point that this idea is indeed culture driven.

Again guys...we have two demoninations here: Catholic and Protestant. One requires chastity/men and the other gives examples of no chastity, marriage, women ministers. Both are showing low recruitment, so therefore chastity, marriage, gender are not the reason for low vocations. It's something else.

Here's the question: if you can think of something that is causing people to either not consider or even out right ignore the call to priesthood/ministry...what would it be. Phoenix...you're the perfect guy to answer this one considering your background.

LarryC wrote:

Ugh. Sigh. I miss Pope JP2.

...I do to.

darrenl wrote:

Here's the question: if you can think of something that is causing people to either not consider or even out right ignore the call to priesthood/ministry...what would it be. Phoenix...you're the perfect guy to answer this one considering your background.

You question is impossible to answer because you are trying to compare apples to oranges. You might be right. You might be wrong.

If the RCC and Protestant ordinands were treated the same in academic requirements, salary, job opportunities, employment atmosphere, work/life balance, benefits, retirement options, etc., then you could look at the variable of celibacy to see if that made a difference in the choices of postulants who were considering ministry.

Because the two are so different, there are far too many variables to account for in the discussion.

darrenl wrote:
Garden Ninja wrote:

2 things:

  • An issue ostensibly only affecting a small portion of the population is hardly a good reason to ignore it.
  • Being more inclusive at worst has no affect on the recruitment problem, and at best will help correct it.

...using the word "inclusive" seems to prove my point that this idea is indeed culture driven.

Just proving it's culture driven isn't enough though. You have to show it's *wrongly* driven by culture. A Pope from Poland using the same word--"solidarity"--associated with a Polish trade union movement proves he was driven by culture, but that doesn't mean the things JPII said about imperialism have no place in the Catholic Church.

CheezePavilion wrote:
darrenl wrote:
Garden Ninja wrote:

2 things:

  • An issue ostensibly only affecting a small portion of the population is hardly a good reason to ignore it.
  • Being more inclusive at worst has no affect on the recruitment problem, and at best will help correct it.

...using the word "inclusive" seems to prove my point that this idea is indeed culture driven.

Just proving it's culture driven isn't enough though. You have to show it's *wrongly* driven by culture. A Pope from Poland using the same word--"solidarity"--associated with a Polish trade union movement proves he was driven by culture, but that doesn't mean the things JPII said about imperialism have no place in the Catholic Church.

It doesn't have to be shown it's wrongly driven by culture at all, because culture should not be driving anything in this case...that's my point. If it were a driver in theological issues today, coke-a-cola would probably be a replacement for wine during consecration (...I'm being sarcastic..but hopefully you get the the point...). Going further. We can't replace wine with coke because Jesus used wine. He didn't explicitly say not to use wine...he didn't explicitly say to use wine...but he *did* use it. We can't replace bread with chips (...ruffled of course...). He didn't explicitly say not to use bread...he didn't explicitly say to use bread...but he *did* use it. Same with women priests. In all three cases, the church is powerless to change these due to the clear, powerful examples used by Jesus. Tradition follows these examples...not cultural trends. William Inge once said, "Whoever marries the spirit of this age will find himself a widower in the next.”

Proponents of this idea have to show why this needs to driven at all, given the traditional and scriptural evidence at hand. My point is, and as I've stated before, there is no such evidence.

darrenl wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
darrenl wrote:
Garden Ninja wrote:

2 things:

  • An issue ostensibly only affecting a small portion of the population is hardly a good reason to ignore it.
  • Being more inclusive at worst has no affect on the recruitment problem, and at best will help correct it.

...using the word "inclusive" seems to prove my point that this idea is indeed culture driven.

Just proving it's culture driven isn't enough though. You have to show it's *wrongly* driven by culture. A Pope from Poland using the same word--"solidarity"--associated with a Polish trade union movement proves he was driven by culture, but that doesn't mean the things JPII said about imperialism have no place in the Catholic Church.

It doesn't have to be shown it's wrongly driven by culture at all, because culture should not be driving anything in this case...that's my point. If it were a driver in theological issues today, coke-a-cola would probably be a replacement for wine during consecration (...I'm being sarcastic..but hopefully you get the the point...). Going further. We can't replace wine with coke because Jesus used wine. He didn't explicitly say not to use wine...he didn't explicitly say to use wine...but he *did* use it. We can't replace bread with chips (...ruffled of course...). He didn't explicitly say not to use bread...he didn't explicitly say to use bread...but he *did* use it. Same with women priests. In all three cases, the church is powerless to change these due to the clear, powerful examples used by Jesus. Tradition follows these examples...not cultural trends. William Inge once said, "Whoever marries the spirit of this age will find himself a widower in the next.”

Proponents of this idea have to show why this needs to driven at all, given the traditional and scriptural evidence at hand. My point is, and as I've stated before, there is no such evidence.

You brought up the Samaritans and compared them to women earlier: since there were no Samaritans among the apostles, what is that a "clear, powerful example" of?

CheezePavilion wrote:
darrenl wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
darrenl wrote:
Garden Ninja wrote:

2 things:

  • An issue ostensibly only affecting a small portion of the population is hardly a good reason to ignore it.
  • Being more inclusive at worst has no affect on the recruitment problem, and at best will help correct it.

...using the word "inclusive" seems to prove my point that this idea is indeed culture driven.

Just proving it's culture driven isn't enough though. You have to show it's *wrongly* driven by culture. A Pope from Poland using the same word--"solidarity"--associated with a Polish trade union movement proves he was driven by culture, but that doesn't mean the things JPII said about imperialism have no place in the Catholic Church.

It doesn't have to be shown it's wrongly driven by culture at all, because culture should not be driving anything in this case...that's my point. If it were a driver in theological issues today, coke-a-cola would probably be a replacement for wine during consecration (...I'm being sarcastic..but hopefully you get the the point...). Going further. We can't replace wine with coke because Jesus used wine. He didn't explicitly say not to use wine...he didn't explicitly say to use wine...but he *did* use it. We can't replace bread with chips (...ruffled of course...). He didn't explicitly say not to use bread...he didn't explicitly say to use bread...but he *did* use it. Same with women priests. In all three cases, the church is powerless to change these due to the clear, powerful examples used by Jesus. Tradition follows these examples...not cultural trends. William Inge once said, "Whoever marries the spirit of this age will find himself a widower in the next.”

Proponents of this idea have to show why this needs to driven at all, given the traditional and scriptural evidence at hand. My point is, and as I've stated before, there is no such evidence.

You brought up the Samaritans and compared them to women earlier: since there were no Samaritans among the apostles, what is that a "clear, powerful example" of?

Let me just refine your statement just a bit. The example I gave about the Samaritan wasn't a comparison to women. The woman at the well was a Samaritan...so, double wammy on her. The Samaritan woman example showed Jesus crossing three boundaries: 1) conversing with a woman in public, 2) drinking with a Samaritan and 3) associating with a sinner (she was an adulterer). It's a powerful example of how Jesus is able to see (...really see..) people

From JP2:

"This is an event without precedent: that a woman, and what is more a “sinful woman,” becomes a “disciple” of Christ. Indeed, once taught, she proclaims Christ to the inhabitants of Samaria, so that they too receive him with faith. This is an unprecedented event, if one remembers the usual way women were treated by those who were teachers in Israel; whereas in Jesus of Nazareth’s way of acting such an event becomes normal."

darrenl wrote:

Let me just refine your statement just a bit. The example I gave about the Samaritan wasn't a comparison to women. The woman at the well was a Samaritan...so, double wammy on her. The Samaritan woman example showed Jesus crossing three boundaries: 1) conversing with a woman in public, 2) drinking with a Samaritan and 3) associating with a sinner (she was an adulterer). It's a powerful example of how Jesus is able to see (...really see..) people

From JP2:

"This is an event without precedent: that a woman, and what is more a “sinful woman,” becomes a “disciple” of Christ. Indeed, once taught, she proclaims Christ to the inhabitants of Samaria, so that they too receive him with faith. This is an unprecedented event, if one remembers the usual way women were treated by those who were teachers in Israel; whereas in Jesus of Nazareth’s way of acting such an event becomes normal."

So how do we know Jesus wouldn't have included her if she was in town for the Last Supper?

CheezePavilion wrote:
darrenl wrote:

Let me just refine your statement just a bit. The example I gave about the Samaritan wasn't a comparison to women. The woman at the well was a Samaritan...so, double wammy on her. The Samaritan woman example showed Jesus crossing three boundaries: 1) conversing with a woman in public, 2) drinking with a Samaritan and 3) associating with a sinner (she was an adulterer). It's a powerful example of how Jesus is able to see (...really see..) people

From JP2:

"This is an event without precedent: that a woman, and what is more a “sinful woman,” becomes a “disciple” of Christ. Indeed, once taught, she proclaims Christ to the inhabitants of Samaria, so that they too receive him with faith. This is an unprecedented event, if one remembers the usual way women were treated by those who were teachers in Israel; whereas in Jesus of Nazareth’s way of acting such an event becomes normal."

So how do we know Jesus wouldn't have included her if she was in town for the Last Supper?

Well, Jesus' own mother wasn't included(...whom the angle Gabriele Called blessed amongst all women..)...and she was in town. So, there's that. Bible is quite clear who was there.