C.S. Lewis's review of this appalling decision circa 1948:
"Why should a woman not in this sense represent God? Certainly not because she is necessarily, or even probably, less holy or less charitable or stupider than a man. In that sense she may be as 'God-like' as a man; and a given women much more so than a given man. The sense in which she cannot represent God will perhaps be plainer if we look at the thing the other way round.
Suppose the reformer stops saying that a good woman may be like God and begins saying that God is like a good woman. Suppose he says that we might just as well pray to "Our Mother which art in heaven" as to "Our Father". Suppose he suggests that the Incarnation might just as well have taken a female as a male form, and the Second Person of the Trinity be as well called the Daughter as the Son. Suppose, finally, that the mystical marriage were reversed, that the Church were the Bridegroom and Christ the Bride. All this, as it seems to me, is involved in the claim that a woman can represent God as a priest does.
Now it is surely the case that if all these supposals were ever carried into effect we should be embarked on a different religion. Goddesses have, of course, been worshipped: many religions have had priestesses. But they are religions quite different in character from Christianity. Common sense, disregarding the discomfort, or even the horror, which the idea of turning all our theological language into the feminine gender arouses in most Christians, will ask 'Why not? Since God is in fact not a biological being and has no sex, what can it matter whether we say He or She, Father or Mother, Son or Daughter?'
But Christians think that God Himself has taught us how to speak of Him. To say that it does not matter is to say either that all the masculine imagery is not inspired, is merely human in origin, or else that, though inspired, it is quite arbitrary and unessential. And this is surely intolerable: or, if tolerable, it is an argument not in favour of Christian priestesses but against Christianity. It is also surely based on a shallow view of imagery. Without drawing upon religion, we know from our poetical experience that image and apprehension cleave closer together than common sense is here prepared to admit; that a child who has been taught to pray to a Mother in Heaven would have a religious life radically different from that of a Christian child. And as image and apprehension are in an organic unity, so, for a Christian, are human body and human soul.
The innovators are really implying that sex is something superficial, irrelevant to the spiritual life. To say that men and women are equally eligible for a certain profession is to say that for the purposes of that profession their sex is irrelevant. We are, within that context, treating both as neuters.
With the Church, we are farther in: for there we are dealing with male and female not merely as facts of nature but as the live and awful shadows of realities utterly beyond our control and largely beyond our direct knowledge. Or rather, we are not dealing with them but (as we shall soon learn if we meddle) they are dealing with us."
From "Priestesses in the Church?"
So it looks like jury trials that actually produce justice are largely if not only made possible in a Christian society/nation, and not the godless husk of a post-Christian state
Who knew (we did)
Keith Richards and Willie Nelson outliving Dolly Parton and Richard Simmons has me seriously questioning everything I was told in D.A.R.E. in 3td grade.
Calvinists misrepresent the Provisionist view, claiming that if man must accept Christ, saving faith is a “work” and therefore man is in part responsible for his own salvation.
No. Faith is not the price paid for salvation. It is the empty hand that receives what Christ has already purchased. Accepting a gift does not mean you earned it or bargained for it, and conditioning salvation upon saving faith does not transform grace into works.
@DineshDSouza@Soteriology101
Calvinists appeal to free will to explain the existence of moral evil—then they deny it when it comes to salvation.
Moreover, the Calvinist doctrine of predestination turns God Himself into a deceiver. I cannot go along with this nonsense.
What language did Jesus speak? Most people assume Aramaic.
It is true that the gospels contain several statements where Jesus speaks Aramaic. Such as when He raises Jairus’s daughter from the dead and tells her, “talitha cumi.”
It’s also true that Aramaic had been growing in popularity leading up to the first century when Jesus walked the earth. So it makes sense that He would have spoken Aramaic.
But there’s a crucial false assumption here.
As modern English speakers, we live in a mono-lingual society. And it’s easy to project that reality onto past cultures. But most societies throughout history have been multi-lingual - including Judea in Jesus’ day.
So the question is not what language Jesus spoke, but which languages and when.
There’s good evidence that Jesus spoke both Greek and Hebrew as well as Aramaic and that He used these languages in different contexts throughout His ministry.
Jesus grew up in Nazareth, which was near the capital of the Galilee region: Sepphoris. This city was a hub of commerce - which meant it was heavily Greek influenced. Jesus likely would have visited the city with His father and learned to speak Greek there.
Of Jesus’ conversations in the gospels, at least two were likely in Greek. First, Jesus likely spoke Greek with the Roman centurion whose servant He healed, as Greek was the lingua franca, and it is unlikely the centurion knew Aramaic.
For several reasons, it is also very likely that Jesus spoke Greek with Nicodemus. First, the name Nicodemus is Greek. Second, Nicodemus was an upper-class Jew, making it likely that he spoke Greek on a regular basis. And third, the nuances of their conversation suggest that it was originally in Greek.
So Jesus almost certainly spoke Greek.
It is also likely that He spoke Hebrew and used it regularly in His ministry. Documents like the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Bar Kokhba letters, and the Mishnah attest that Hebrew was spoken for religious teaching and everyday use well into the second century AD.
It is probable that Jesus would have taught His fellow Jews in Hebrew, and we find evidence of this in the details of the Sermon on the Mount and other teachings.
Bottom line: as moderns, we tend to assume Jesus would have primarily spoken one language. But most of the world for most of history has been multi-lingual. And 1st century Galilee was no different.
Jesus almost certainly spoke Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic - and He used them on different occasions for different purposes depending on who He was speaking to.
I don’t know exactly how to to say it…
But all I know is that while I was running as fast and as hard as I possibly could away from Jesus…
…he never gave up on me and he’s actually been chasing after me, the whole time.
@FredMinnick I’ll probably play in 2 leagues this year and I’m not looking forward to it like in the past. Normally I have about 20 teams.
Didn’t watch the SB for the first time ever this year and haven’t felt the same about football since then. Just got back a whole lot of free time.
@mattvanswol@megbasham Megan do you want to take this one?
Matt there is an intentional sabotage in the church and it is even creeping in to the most conservative denominations.