Daviy wrote: "Is there any way of knowing which are the church of Paul and which are Gnostic when stating the participation of women?"

The essential point is that the woman baptized Gentiles and the priest would only baptize Jewish celibates. The "Miriam" (Mary), the Chief Woman of the Therapeuts, was permitted to act in ministry, following the example of Miriam the sister of Moses in Exodus 15:21. The Therapeuts, not living in monasteries but only in hermitages, admitted female hermits. The Therapeuts were the ones who attracted and accepted Gentiles. Since both the woman and the Gentiles were uncircumcised, and the baptismal rite of immersion in a river required physical proximity, only a woman was allowed to be close to such "unclean" men. But the rite of immersion baptism in monasteries was performed by the highest priests on Jewish men who were committing themselves to the permanently celibate life. John the Baptist as the Zadokite, when living in the monastery, performed these ceremonies.

The Christian version of baptism came through the Gentiles. The Gospel of Philip, II 52, 21-25, says, "When we were Hebrews we were orphans and had only our mother, but when we became Christians we had both father and mother". This gospel comes from the 1st century AD (as may be argued, with strong evidence, against some present day scholarly opinion). It came from Gentiles, who had begun with the Therapeuts and called themselves "Hebrews". They had known only baptism by a woman, who was symbolised as their "Mother". But when the views of the Gentile party led by Jesus prevailed, adopting the name "Christian" in 44 AD, Gentiles were no longer treated as "unclean", and they were baptized by a village priest whom they called "Father", a title preserved in the Church.

http://www.pesherofchrist.infinitesoulutions.com/index_Questions.html

From the fair sprinkling of OMGs and lols, I suspect my year 12 student-in-confusion "conspiracy theory", as you describe it OP2, is not far from the mark.

But my curiosity is still unsated.

>>Pericles I have looked at some of your other posts in other threads. You are far better than this! I am seeking the TRUTH!<<

All I can say is that if you have been looking for clues in other threads, you should be pretty clear by now that this will not do as an answer to the question "why are you so keen on this line of questioning and reasoning?"

The first problem is that there is no "TRUTH!" to find.

Only opinions. Only emotions. Only ideas.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, of course - that's why we're all here, to share this stuff and gain different perspectives.

But your form of aggressive questioning cannot possibly uncover any "TRUTH!s" apart from the ones you have clearly predetermined for yourself.

If you can find the courage, at some point you might even "come out" as an atheist, given that there has to be a physical limit to the number of times you can verbally trash a religion without coming to some pretty naked and obvious conclusions about your attitude towards it.

You may perhaps arrive at this point when you discover that the answer to all your niggling little questions is simply that some people believe, and some don't.

Some people barrack for Collingwood, some for Essendon. Some believe John Howard was an ethics-free disaster zone, others that he was the most competent PM ever. Searching for "TRUTH!" in religion shares many of the attributes of getting one of these believers to change their mind.

While it is theoretically possible to do so, the new position they adopt will still be belief-based, not facts-based.

Hey Pericles,

I suspect you may be correct. Though to be more precise I would say it is the original OP2's son we are talking to who is using his father's account. He would be 18 now and doing his HSC.

The Kath and Kim-isms aside, the apparent lack of ability to argue from anything but a negative position is indicative of that age, it certainly was for me. One rarely starts cementing in their core beliefs until a little further down the track.

I think we can forgive him for his youthful feckleness however it would be probably unforgivable in anyone much older than 25. Once life kicks a little more sense and tolerance into him I think it bodes well for the future. Hell at that age I remember telling my betters the world would be far better off when their generation passed on and left it to us.

However also at that age the usual tactic is to put up a position, defend it to the death just for the thrill of the debate, but still be open enough to weave it into ones set of beliefs, therefore in continuing to engage with him you are providing a service, so don’t give up. He might end up as our prime minister or even the Archbishop of Sydney.

Very plausible csteele.

>>Hell at that age I remember telling my betters the world would be far better off when their generation passed on and left it to us.<<

For me it was flower power and the love revolution - the Vietnam War, for example, played a key role in my journey from childhood certainty to atheism.

http://tinyurl.com/b3nfs2

When the moon is in the Seventh House
And Jupiter aligns with Mars
Then peace will guide the planets
And love will steer the stars

This is the dawning of the age of Aquarius
The age of Aquarius
Aquarius!

Harmony and understanding
Sympathy and trust abounding
No more falsehoods or derisions
Golden living dreams of visions
Mystic crystal revelation
And the mind's true liberation
Aquarius!

(James Rado, Gerome Ragni)

Thank you for your reply Sympneology

Oliver posted to the effect that there is evidence that women had a very active role in Christian churches. I hope I have paraphrased that correctly.

My question was 'was it known if the churches that this evidence came from were Paul's churches or Gnostic churches?'

Hi Daviy,

As the evidence comes from the 1st century Gospel of Phillip, one of the Gnostic writings, I would assume that where women had an early role would be among the Gentile dominated Gnostic churches.

Paul's mission was mainly to his fellow Diaspora Jews and so would have preserved the male oriented Essenic liturgy.

By the time of the Council of Nicaea, of course, males had reasserted their hegemony in all churches.