Why can't women be priests?Hard mode: Answer in a way that won't absolutely disgust me, a woman, and drive me away from Christianity forever.
>>18168832Because Jesus never had female apostlesThat's it. Short and simpleThe Church is trying to imitate Christ, and because Christ never allowed women to become disciples, neither can the Churchmaybe ask him on his return.The Church is powerless about that
>>18168832Because priests are representing Christ, and Christ was a man. More specifically, He is the King of Kings, and the highest authority in Heaven. In a similar way, the Pope is the leader of the Church on Earth, and bishops are those who are both regional versions of Popes and also candidates to become future Popes. Since Adam was the original representitave of man, being the head of the human race, it is more appropriate for a man to be the Pope than a woman, and therefore women should not be priests. "All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not." (1 Cor 10:23) Just because it is possible to do something doesn't mean you ought to do it. Additionally, there is the authority of tradition which says that women should not become priests, since all of the original Apostles were men. In the Old Testanent, priests were men. Finally, there are biological differences between men and women which make men more suitable to the role of priest.
>>18168832St. Paul said so and he was visited by God and spent time with the Apostles
>>18168832Because it was just made up by smart and lazy men to get free shit from retards, the levites just kept all of the stuff that was supposedly given to God for themselves, the christian clergy does the same. Men are all evil so they can trust that no one will snitch if they only let men join in, while women have a capacity for goodness so they might snitch
>>18168832because they bleed over everything and are gossip mongers
>>18168869Women were the ones temped by the snake to betray men.
>>18168889According to what? The book written by men?
Because abrahamists in general see women as being inferior to them.Its just pure ancient misoginy, its really that simple.
>>18168892>loses theological argument>"time to throw away Scripture!"This is why women shouldn't be priests
>>18168832At some point someone interpolated text into one of Paul's letters and forged another letter saying that women should shut up in church, and for some reason the church that accepted those forgeries/interpolations is the one that survived.
>>18168912I'm not the OP, I already explained in the post you replied to that the abhramic religion as a whole is a scam by men, men shouldn't be allowed to speak or write as they are inherently demonic and will only ever lie and mislead
>>18168946Ok well in that case, nobody asked what you think.
>>18168832>Why can't women be priests?Because women should be spending time with their children instead of up on stage in front of a group of men>I'll throw a fit if you don't give an answer I don't likeDon't care
>>18168832You're not a woman. Not even trans, you're just trolling.
>>18168909Wrong, most holy creature ever is a woman.
ywnbaw
>>18168946Suppose I, as a man, accepted your ideas. What would you have me do? Never speak or write, ever? What would I even have to do? How would I go forth in life being inherently demonic? And why do you believe the things you do?
>>18168885>runs like diarrhea into into arse end of atheism
>>18168892Who knows if it was a man who wrote it. Where you even there when it was cast into stone?
>>18169046Thats adorable that you believe that, but in reality women were treated as inferior and as property by abrahamists.They gaslight and manipulated them into thinking their holy in the eyes of god by bringing life in this world, but they were controlled like animals.
>>18168909See>>18169046Mary is without sin and the mother of Jesus Christ. A truly misogynistic religion would not venerate her at all, unless you think that Mary was being used as a tool. I don't think Christians would take kind of that kind of instrumentalist take on human beings. True, they had uses but they weren't simply pragmatic. The only person who viewed it that was was Machiavelli, and I got unfortunate news to tell you if you assert yourself to be a feminist.
>>18170494Still not beating the allegations of being a man in a dress or a wolf in sheep's clothing I'm afraid, which metaphor is appropriate.
>>18168856Jesus also never had non-Jewish apostles. Should only Jews be priests?
Men and women have never held the same role in religion. Ever. One of the nice things about Paganism was it basically demonstrated that.
>>18168856>Because Jesus never had female apostlesMary Magdalene was his closest which is why she was the one originally tasked with the mission to tell everyone about jesus's resurrection.
>>18170499Can Mary be a priest and have equal rights in society?Can women create a cult behind Mary and create a church which the religious elite can approve?
>>18168909>Because abrahamists in general see women as being inferior to them.No, jews are matriarchal and matrilineal, they practically worship Queen Esther.
>>18170509You stupid fucking retards need to realize that worshipping an idealized version of a female versus the rights of females in society are two different things.No woman will give two fucks about the fact that she is worshipped in some spiritual realm if she cant find a job because in this realm because she is female.
>>18170502Appeal to tradition
>>18170501Not him, sure, but the apostles did
>>18170520Ahh, I guess religion is just>x thing never done before! Let's do that!
>>18170532Straw man fallacy
>>18170520Yes, that's the point of tradition - a connection to your ancestors and all the lessons that allowed them to survive and thrive
>>18170519I accept your concession, they worship women rather than seeing them as inferior which is why they hold them to such higher standards and have harsher punishment when they stray outside of their inherent divinity.
https://www.garynorth.com/freebooks/docs/pdf/judges.pdfAn investigation of the Biblical material reveals that there are judgesses and queens in the Bible, and though there are not many, nobody seems to be surprised about it. There are also prophetesses, and again though they are few, nobody seems to be amazed at it. But there are no priestesses. The reason for this is found (as usual) in Genesis 2 and 3.The woman was made to be a helper to the man in his work. That work was the work of dressing the garden, understanding it, ruling over it, seen first of ‘all in the naming of the animals (Gen. 2:15-20). Man’s second work was to guard (in English Bibles, “keep”) the garden (Gen. 2:15). The woman at his side was part of what he was supposed to guard; indeed, the woman is a kind of symbol for the garden as a whole, as the analogies in Canticles make clear. When Satan attacked, however, the man failed to guard his wife (though he was standing next to her during the whole conversation – Gen. 3:6, “with her”), and thus failed to guard the garden (Gen. 3:1-6). As a result, man was cast out as guardian, and angels took his place (Gen. 3:24).Guarding is man’s priestly task, as shepherding is his kingly task. It is precisely because it is the bride who must be guarded, that the woman cannot be a priest. She is not the priest; rather, she is what the priest (imaging the Divine Bridegroom) guards and protects. Thus, the woman may not take up a leading liturgical role in worship, for she cannot represent the Groom to the Bride (1 Cor. 14:34).
>>18170519>if she cant find a job because in this realm because she is female.So Jesus should be mad that the apostles wouldn't let him be a lowly fisherman since they worshiped him as a god instead of treating him like a fish mongering peer?
>>18168832>me, a womanI mean no offence, but...You have to be born with a vagina to be a woman.You're free to play female characters in MMORPGs if that's what scratches your itch, though
>>18170542Adam was not given the role to guard the garden, mateEve just failed her testAnd Adam loved Eve so much that he forsook his love of God for her
>>18168917Do we have any manuscripts of these “true originals” from the early Church era by which to call the ones we use now forgeries? No? Not even fragments? And all contemporary sources describing its contents agree with what’s in Bible we have? Then you’re baselessly speculating.You make the same mistake Muslims and atheists do when confronting the Bible.>be you>have particular ideology>sees Bible doesn’t support your ideology>still want to use the Bible’s ancient authority to substantiate your ideology>claim without proof that the parts you don’t like are forged and you have the true readings that so happen to conform to your ideology>fail to realize that by doing this you undermine the whole reason (ancient authority through protected transmission) that anyone respects the text at all>mfw you create your own undoing>mfw you’re willfully oblivious and keeping yourself in denial
>>18170771>all contemporary sources describing its contents agree with what’s in Bible we have?Marcion was saying that Paul's letters had been messed with right from the beginning, and he didn't acknowledge the existence of the pastoral epistles, perhaps because they didn't exist yet. Textual criticism and manuscript variations can help discern which parts were there originally and which parts were added in, like e.g. the part in 1 Corinthians 14 about how women should be quiet showing up in different places, disrupting the flow of the text where it appears most commonly, and creating apparent discrepancies with other early parts of 1 Corinthians where Paul gives advice that assumes women will be speaking in church and where he expresses his desire for everyone to prophesy.
Could it be because the Bible says so? Just a guess.
>>181688321. Because there is no priest of the new covenant besides Jesus Christ, analogically every Christian is a priest 2. What disgusts you and drives you away is meaningless, you will repent or you will burn, sinner 3. A woman cannot be an elder because this is contrary to the institution of God, though she may lawfully be a deacon. And the reason may be found in the words, "how shall he rule the house of God if he cannot rule his own house?" A distinct and essential quality of eldership is the governance and rule of the church in like manner as the family, but properly in the family the man rules, therefore likewise of the church.
>>18170859Not that papists ever cared about that.
>>18170836Marcion made many claims, but all were in the service of separating the God of the New Testament from the God of the Old, coinciding with Gnosticism. Where was his teaching that the role of women in Paul’s letters was corrupted by the early Church? That one change would cause such major alteration to the social dynamics of the early Church that he would surely state it in his works as an example of developing heresy, yet he doesn’t.All of his detractors fought with him over the Gnostic questions about the nature of God, not the role of women in the Church or really much else. The detractors, who wrote literal volumes on Marcion’s teachings being heresy and had ample opportunity to defend beliefs in women not being priests, never argued about this idea with Marcion. It thus holds that there was no reason to argue about it because they both agreed on that point.
>>18170872>Catholics never cared about the document they themselves carefully edited and censoredHaha
>>18168832It's pretty simple really. Both men and women have different roles. The biblical patriarchs were men, and Christ was a man. But it was the Virgin Mary who bore Christ into the world - the man is the priest, the leader. But the woman is the ark of the covenant, the womb that bore infinity, the church itself. Yes, the church itself can be conceived of in the sense of a feminine womb, of the womb of Mary. And I think that's beautiful, and certainly no less important than the priesthood
>>18170950Mother goddess paganism.
>>18170955Not the same typologically. It's the fulfillment of that through actual historical persons. 1. We don't worship Mary. 2. We don't worship the earth or naturalistic forces. 3. Do you not see the appeal of something like mother goddess paganism, however? The feminine needs space to be respected and venerated in a proper context. And the orthodox understanding of Mary and the church does that, and no it's not just mother goddess paganism. It's the fulfillment and baptism of that, and refer to my prior points
I dont think it should include women either. Im not even christian
>>18170941>do everything and anything that the Bible does not allow>claim that you are the author of the Bible and you gave protestants their BibleYou can't even make this stuff up. The term "clown world" is an understatement.
>>18168832because a woman's highest calling is to be a mothersome women become nuns but that's a path for those unable to bear children
>>18170907>Where was his teaching that the role of women in Paul’s letters was corrupted by the early Church? That one change would cause such major alteration to the social dynamics of the early Church that he would surely state it in his works as an example of developing heresy, yet he doesn’t.My guess is that the interpolation happened together with the forgery of the pastoral epistles, since 1 Timothy has an extremely similar rule about women being silent. So it didn't come up for Marcion because it wasn't there for anyone when Marcion was alive. IIRC early Christianity was quite popular among women, and that seems more likely under the assumption that early Christianity wasn't as patriarchal as the Christianity that won out.
>>18171428>forgery of the pastoral epistles like 1 TimothyEven secular dating, which has the tendency to date Christian writings very late, places 1 Timothy’s composition at latest before 150, likeliest at the turn of the 100s. Marcion was excommunicated in the 140s. I find it extremely doubtful that 1 Timothy wasn’t yet in widespread use by the time Marcion was argued against.
>>18170480I doubt a demon would ever recognize its nature for what it is, but if one were truly to recognize its demonic nature and try to repent I'd instruct him to cut his tongue, refrain from any attempt at using language and become a slave of angels (women). Though I might allow exceptional male artists to use language with the censorship of their slave master if I appreciate their art, if it's required for making more of their art. Allowing them to use language without prior censorship by an educated master would be dangerous, but it should be fine for them to write books or songs if the master revises it before publishing it to the public
>>18170494I've got bad news for you if you think that's unique to the Abrahamic religions.
>>18171544Searching through the church fathers' writings for original sources is a pain on a phone, but from I've found it repeated in several places that Marcionite churches had equality between men. See:https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA776115141&sid=sitemap&v=2.1&it=r&p=IFME&sw=w&userGroupName=anon%7E7083c931&aty=open-web-entry>Marcionism "put women on an equal footing with men, appointing them deaconesses, priestesses and even bishops", points out the scientist of religions Ana Cândida Vieira Henriques, PhD from the Federal University of Paraíba (UFPB), in an academic article published in 2017.https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/info/marcion-wace.html>Epiphanius states that Marcion permitted females to baptize.https://www.britannica.com/topic/Marcionites>They admitted women to the priesthood and bishopric.https://vridar.org/2008/01/20/the-anti-marcionite-character-of-the-pastoral-epistles/>Note also that Marcionite women were teachers or prophetesses (Tert, Hipp, Epiph, Eznik)So it does seem like if the line in 1 Corinthians 14 was there to begin with, either Marcion must've identified it as an interpolation and tossed it out without anyone commenting on that specific change (as far as I know), or it wasn't there for him to toss out. And the last article I quoted suggests that the pastorals were at least in part specifically anti-Marcionite forgeries, and if so it would make sense that they showed up after Marcion's church took off.
>>18171618*had greater equality between men and women
...I should stop phoneposting. It makes my writing barely coherent.
>>18170520>Here is a tradition>It is a solution to a problem that is millennia old>It works>Some variation of this tradition is found in basically every culture that progressed beyond retarded hunter gatherers>But it's old>and therefore yucky and wrong>I am very smartYou can absolutely interrogate and find problems with traditions, and potentially find ways to achieve the same goals through different methods - which is why it always makes people (like you) look like actually brainless retards when you follow the above logic.
Paul was incredibly misogynistic even for his time, the other apostles argued against him and there were numerous women preaching in the early church. Israel had been lead by female judges in the old testament before they would be led by kings.
>>18171664Read the above discussion. I'm quite sure that Paul wasn't misogynistic and the misogyny was added in later by the proto-orthodox via forgery and interpolation. Paul wasn't misogynistic, but the proto-orthodox were, and they were fine with falsifying Paul to take him away from the "heretics" who respected him most out of all the apostles, like the Marcionites and Valentinians.
>There is no longer Jew or Greek; there is no longer slave or free; there is no longer male and female, for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28)This is the authentic Paul.
There's about 105 men born for every 100 women. Those excess men need a purpose in life. Traditionally, war was the solution. Christ asked us to be peacemakers however. Therefore, the Church became the place for these extra men. That way we can live in peace with a small contingent of men choosing abstinence and serving Christ.
>>18171675Why did anyone allow forgeries into the bible?
>>18170529You've just invalidated your own argument and admitted that the demographics of Jesus' disciples aren't of relevance. Those Disciples themselves didn't feel beholden to it.
>>18172056Demographics, noGender, yesNeither the apostles nor Jesus appointed women for the role of the priesthood. The Church cannot change that
>>18171679Arguably, this only happens around the time of the Second Coming, not before that
>>18168832https://youtu.be/mNz1Hj4q55Y?si=zRPkqp82W660VdJO
>>18171618>So it does seem like if the line in 1 Corinthians 14 was there to begin with, either Marcion must've identified it as an interpolation and tossed it out without anyone commenting on that specific change (as far as I know), or it wasn't there for him to toss out.I air on the side of it was there, mainly because of the Didache. The Didache is pretty squarely dated to the 1st century (before 100 and thus before Marcion was an adult or possibly even born) and directly states men are chosen to be bishops and deacons, not women, lining up with the sentiment of 1 Timothy 3.> Appoint therefore for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, meek men, and not lovers of money, and truthful and approved, for they also minister to you the ministry of the prophets and teachers. Therefore do not despise them, for they are your honourable men together with the prophets and teachers.Didache 15:1-2The Greek text for comparison:> Χειροτονήσατε οὖν ἑαυτοῖς ἐπισκόπους καὶ διακόνους ἀξίους τοῦ Κυρίου, ἄνδρας πραεῖς καὶ ἀφιλαργύρους καὶ ἀληθεῖς καὶ δεδοκιμασμένους· ὑμῖν γὰρ λειτουργοῦσι καὶ αὐτοὶ τὴν λειτουργὶ-αν τῶν προφητῶν καὶ διδασκάλων. Μὴ οὖν ὑπερίδητε αὐτούς· αὐτοὶ γὰρ εἰσιν οἱ τετιμημέ-νοι ὑμῶν μετὰ τῶν προφητῶν καὶ διδασκάλων.https://www.gutenberg.org/files/42053/42053-h/42053-h.htmThe Greek word for man ἄνδρας is unambiguously used to refer to the bishops and deacons.This would put the earliest outside attestation of this idea at maximum 45 years away from 1 Corinthians and show the ideas of 1 Timothy have roots far before Marcion became relevant.
>>18173594This assumes the authors of the didache would've agreed with Paul, when the gospel that seems to be most closely connected to the didache is Matthew, and IIRC Matthew is the gospel regarded least reconciliable with Paul in some of its statements with regard to e.g. the importance of obedience to the Jewish law, and it might be openly opposing some of what Paul said in places, like when it has Jesus say "not all who say to me Lord, Lord will enter the kingdom of Heaven" vs Paul's "everyone who calls on the name of the lord will be saved."
>>18173594cont’dI also doubt Marcion stripped out 1 Corinthians 14 because we know he also stripped out what he believed to be heretical lines from the Gospels, compiling his own version of the texts. His critics greatly criticized him for this because it removed many references and allusions to Jesus being the God of the Old Testament, so why wouldn’t Marcion also share revised letters of Paul in a similar manner if there was content he found heretical? I can’t seem to find any statements that he distributed different versions of the letters of Paul like he did with the Gospels, so that indicates to me that the content of 1 Corinthians 14 was always there and genuinely believed to be Paul’s. Marcion just interpreted it differently to let women preach. The most likely interpretation I think he held was that he marked differently where the verses ended since punctuation wasn’t common in manuscripts of those times:> For God is not a God of disorder but of peace—as in all the congregations of the Lord’s people. Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.changes to> For God is not a God of disorder but of peace. As in all the congregations of the Lord’s people, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.1 Corinthians 14:33-34It changes from teaching that women shouldn’t preach to being one about keeping orderliness during church services, like not being chatty in the congregations while the preacher speaks.The argument between the proto-Orthodox and the Marcionites was thus one about punctuation changing the meaning of the verses, and the verse’s content itself was always there.Honestly it’s rather interesting that even at this very early age, internal Church arguments were this legalistic in nature.
>>18173628>I can’t seem to find any statements that he distributed different versions of the letters of Paul like he did with the GospelsFrom what I've gathered, that Marcion cut out parts of Paul's letters is much more certain than that he cut out parts of the gospel. See: https://peterkirby.com/marcions-shorter-readings-of-paul.htmlBut there are theories that Marcion's version of the gospel came before Luke, so that Luke is an expansion of it rather than it being a reduction of Luke: https://mdavidlitwa.com/2025/04/10/how-to-prove-marcions-gospel-came-before-canonical-luke/
>>18173654From that site> Because of the extensive evidence that Marcion did not make any systematic attempt to root out passages that are potentially difficult for his theology (with such examples frequently quoted by Tertullian and other commentators), perceived contradiction with Marcion’s reconstructed theology is not accepted as a confirmatory criterion of omission in the texts of Paul used by Marcionites.That aside, the list of verses provided that are shortened or expanded upon by Marcion does not include anything from 1 Corinthians 14, let alone from verses 33-35. That still leaves me convinced the content of the verses was genuine and accepted by Marcion, with the dispute being interpretation of the clauses’ punctuation and meaning in full textual context.
>>18172780Your argument began that it had to be so because Jesus didn't appoint any women as the twelve disciples. It was then demonstrated that this reasoning would have us have no Gentiles as church leaders either.You have now had to shift your argument to include what the Disciples did. Your original argument is, as you yourself demonstrate, invalid. Looking at the demographics of Jesus' selection of twelve disciples tells us nothing about church leadership qualifications.And now "Neither the apostles nor Jesus appointed women for the role of the priesthood" is technically correct but meaningless as there were no priests during their time. However we know for a fact that there were female leaders of the Church. 1 Corinthians 12:28 says “God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers…”. So the second-highest rank in the church are prophets, second only to the Apostles themselves. The New Testament explicitly says that there were female prophets in Acts 21:8-9 – "Leaving the next day, we reached Caesarea and stayed at the house of Philip the evangelist, one of the Seven. He had four unmarried daughters who prophesied."So those women being prophets, they were some of the highest leaders of the church.The church historian Eusebius confirms this in his Ecclesiastical History, Book 3, chapter 37 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250103.htm). He writes that "Among those that were celebrated at that time was Quadratus, who...was renowned along with the daughters of Philip for his prophetical gifts. And there were many others besides these...who occupied the first place among the successors of the apostles."So once the Apostles were all gone, it was the prophets who were their successors in charge of the church, and Eusebius explicitly tells us that this includes those four prophetesses.
>>18173714>That still leaves me convinced the content of the verses was genuine and accepted by MarcionThat it likely wasn't there for Marcion was already demonstrated here >>18171618 unless you imagine that women being priests, bishops, deaconesses, teachers, prophetesses, and baptizers, "on equal footing with men," was compatible in the minds of the Marcionites with the proposed interpolation into 1 Corinthians 14:"Women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak but should be subordinate, as the law also says. If there is something they want to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church."
>>18174707>unless you imagine that women being priests, bishops, deaconesses, teachers, prophetesses, and baptizers, "on equal footing with men," was compatible in the minds of the Marcionites with the proposed interpolation into 1 Corinthians 14:>>18173714>with the dispute being interpretation of the clauses’ punctuation and meaning in full textual context.That’s what I argued. The content of the verses can lean more strongly in the Marcionites’ favor if punctuated differently, changing where the sentences end between vv 33-34.>>18173628>> For God is not a God of disorder but of peace—as in all the congregations of the Lord’s people. Women should remain silent in the churches. > changes to>> For God is not a God of disorder but of peace. As in all the congregations of the Lord’s people, women should remain silent in the churches.>It changes from teaching that women shouldn’t preach to being one about keeping orderliness during church services, like not being chatty in the congregations while the preacher speaks.Paul would then be using the example of chatty women for the congregation in general to not be noisy distractions while being preached the Gospel to. This would be bolstered by the sections from vv 26-32, which describes how to orderly let people preach. The comparison to “all the congregations of the Lord’s people” is Paul saying women’s conduct should be like all the other congregants silently listening to the Word preached without distraction; vv 36-40 would hammer it home by chastising those that speak out of turn, which behavior he just described with the example of women.This is how I imagine Marcion would’ve interpreted the verses. As the list of his modified Pauline verses >>18173654 show no evidence of 1 Cor 14 being modified, I see this interpretation as most likely.
>>18170975>We don't worship MaryYes you do. This has been proven an infinite number of times, and it's obvious on its face. Stop telling yourself this and repent.>Do you not see the appeal of something like mother goddess paganism, however? No, I'm a Christian >The feminine needs space to be respected and veneratedThe ONLY thing that is to be "venerated" is God. The impulse to heap religion on a created thing is called idolatry.>>18171057You forgot the most important step: "therefore don't believe it"
>>18171220>some women become nuns but that's a path for those unable to bear childrenNo branch of christianity has ever forced the barren into nunnerys or expelled the fertile from nunnerys
>>18174677Yes, women are allowed to teachPaul's messenger, interpreter, and assistant are all womenBut the sacramental duties are all male only>You have now had to shift your argument to include what the Disciples didYeah?Apostolic succession happened because the apostles decided to replace Judas instead of just going on their wayNot to mention Paul's teachings
>>18168832>Why can't women be priests?priests have to have intact testicles, as per scripture. also, women's reason is deficient and they should not speak up in church as per anonymous interpolator.
>>18175442>reading comprehension so? It's a path open to barren women, I did not claim they go to the nunnery by default
>>18168832Love how this thread confirmed it's one tranny that has a seething hatred over Christianity.
>>18176718This makes sense in your mind, I guess
>>18176944The only reason you asked this question is because your penis is floating in a pickle jar somewhere.
>>18168832Galatians 3:28“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”Priests have never been able to remit anyone’s sins. Remission or forgiveness of sins lies in the atonement of Jesus Christ (Heb 10v1-12 – it is never to be ‘repeated’) God forgave all through the Old Testament (Exod 34v7) but could not clear the guilty until Mat 26v28 (Heb 10v4). Therefore no Roman Catholic priest can forgive your sins and he certainly is not a mediator between God and man – 1 Tim 2v5. Anyway, all Christians are priests – Heb 3v1, 13v15, 1 Pet 2v1-5 – Since there is not one verse in the Bible indicating that there is any priesthood in the New Testament, except a priesthood of born-again believers (1 Pet 2) – therefore the entire system of two million priests in the Roman Catholic church is utterly non-Biblical, non-Christian, and non-NewTestament.Hebrews 10:10-14 "By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified."Romans 8:3: “For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:”If you're not sure the Bible is the word of God watch: youtube.com/watch?v=9l5ZEsXjNVI1 Cor. 15:3-4: “For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:” How to know you're saved: youtube.com/watch?v=EAtR40sue5M
>>18170499Mary is not without sin.
>>18176978Another anon with a terminal case of Fregoli delusion. Far too common on this website. I guess the tranny obsession among your type makes sense though, If you're convinced there's only one other person in the world beside yourself, then that person would have to spend half their time crossdressing.
>>18168832It is a restriction made largely in Catholic and Orthodox Christianity. In these denominations the priest represents Christ in those moments where he performs the sacraments, and as Christ was born male with no gender ambiguity the priest must also be born male and cisgender. Having the sacraments be performed by a woman or a transgender is akin to saying that oranges can substitute for lemons simply because they are in the same family of citrus fruits; it does not jive.Protestants do not have such blanket statements spanning all of their denominations, so there are woman priests.
>>18177557>Protestants do not have such blanket statements spanning all of their denominations, so there are woman priests.Of course, that's erroneous.
