How, exactly, is this a literal reading of the Bible?

1 Tim 2:11-12.

In fact, my understanding is that many leaders in the early church were women.

There were deaconesses, but this wasn't a preaching position. I believe the Gnostic sects would've been different too, but of course they missed out on getting their texts into the Bible.

Dang. I missed that billytea. Thanks.

Still, I'm pretty sure that at least some scholars think that women were more involved than that. Our (woman) interim priest mentioned it in a Bible study. I'll contact her and see if I can get some sources, as clearly my memory fails me upon occasion.

Still, I'm pretty sure that at least some scholars think that women were more involved than that. Our (woman) interim priest mentioned it in a Bible study. I'll contact her and see if I can get some sources, as clearly my memory fails me upon occasion.

Sure, but bear in mind that in the earlier years of the church there were at least three significant interpretations - the Jerusalem-based group that stayed close to its Judaic roots, the fruits of Paul's missionary endeavours, and the Gnostics. We can call it surivorship bias, but these different groupings haven't all fared equally well in subsequent years, and if you take the Church's divine underpinnings as given (as is common within Christian circles), then the presence of a practice among an unsuccessful group isn't likely to carry great weight.

I understand that. It just seems to me that I remember that at least some scholars argue that someone mentioned briefly in the NT that many assume to be male, was not. But this is a vague memory, and even my not-so-vague ones don't seem that great right now, so I'll have to check. Perhaps it is, after all, wishful thinking.

1 Tim 2:11-12

If my complete and utter non-Christianity wasn't evident before...before I saw Libkitty's response, I thought for sure this had to be a Minear-related joke.

This is perfect! Mind if I tag?

Go ahead!

Thanks Jessica!

I'm pretty sure that at least some scholars think that women were more involved than that.

Paul specifically mentions, in his letters, certain women (by name -- I believe Phoebe was one) as his "co-workers in Christ." While that doesn't necessarily imply preaching/teaching, for Paul to refer to them as equals is significant.

I understand that. It just seems to me that I remember that at least some scholars argue that someone mentioned briefly in the NT that many assume to be male, was not. But this is a vague memory, and even my not-so-vague ones don't seem that great right now, so I'll have to check. Perhaps it is, after all, wishful thinking.

Possibly. Bear in mind that in the culture of the time, simply allowing women to attend the services with the men was a radical step. It wasn't a particularly emancipated society that Christ and Paul operated in.

Paul specifically mentions, in his letters, certain women (by name -- I believe Phoebe was one) as his "co-workers in Christ." While that doesn't necessarily imply preaching/teaching, for Paul to refer to them as equals is significant.

Yep, and as noted, they do appear in positions of authority within the community, just not in the preaching/teaching hierarchy.

Though Paul tells the older women to instruct the younger women -- does that count as "preaching/teaching"?