Luke 24:13-35 Disciples on the Road to Emmaus a husband and wife?

  • Thread starter Thread starter spangler1982
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
spangler1982 said:
Oh, this Bishop is known to be rather liberal at times… it was my gut feeling that he was trying to suggest that during the time of Jesus, women had discipleship roles much more similar to men than what has been traditionally believed… Just wanted to check this gut response to what others on here might think.
Click to expand...
it is not a particularly liberal slant to note that women did indeed have discipleship roles in Jesus’ ministry since scripture mentions several by name, and several women who were active in various ministries in the early Church. The confusion comes when the distinction between apostle and disciple is not enunciated, or in the rest of the OT, the distinctions between apostles and their successors, the bishops, the presbyters or priests, ordained deacons, and lay persons of either gender serving in various ministries are not enunciated.
 
Benedict_777 said:
Could this passage be a proof for Christ’s presence in the Holy Eucharist? Especially considering the fact that right after Jesus broke and blessed the bread he vanished from there sight. Was this to prove his presence in the Eucharist?
Click to expand...
Good thought Benedict. Because appearance is not fixed by the laws of physics but the divine will the ability to recognize someone divinized is initiated by an act of will. For Mary Magdallen it was Jesus saying her name. When Jesus broke bread that initiated recognition. So it is revealed that the breaking of bread, the Eucharist initiates recognition of Jesus Glorified. :twocents:
 
diggerdomer said:
I don’t think I can be more specific than the Gospels. Sorry.
Click to expand...
My brother. What I mean is “Can you be more specific about what point”? I have to understand what point you are trying to make in order to understand your specificity.

Would you help a confused brother in need?
 
Is it just me or is it that every time Luke mentions women with the disciples he splits them out. I don’t have time to look throughout Luke and Acts, but I’ll give an example from Acts, chapter 1.

13 When they entered the city they went to the upper room where they were staying, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James son of Alphaeus, Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James. 14 All these devoted themselves with one accord to prayer, together with some women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers.
 
thomas_jd said:
Page 513# 13-27 Gospel and Acts of the Apostles
Click to expand...
I think you’re missing diggerdomer’s point. He’s saying where is it in Scripture, not in Scripture Commentary. Although the Navarre is very Orthodox commentary, I don’t agree with all of it, and we should all understand that it (the commentary) is not inspired.
 
NotWorthy said:
My brother. What I mean is “Can you be more specific about what point”? I have to understand what point you are trying to make in order to understand your specificity.

Would you help a confused brother in need?
Click to expand...
Hi. Thanks. The post I responded to…spangler, who seems to have disappeared so perhaps this thread is moot…as I read it suggested that there was some different “traditional” understanding of discipleship depending on one’s gender. I simply suggested reading the Gospels, which, to my understanding, clearly indicate that men and women are both called to the same discipleship of Christ. Hope this helps.
 
diggerdomer said:
Hi. Thanks. The post I responded to…spangler, who seems to have disappeared so perhaps this thread is moot…as I read it suggested that there was some different “traditional” understanding of discipleship depending on one’s gender. I simply suggested reading the Gospels, which, to my understanding, clearly indicate that men and women are both called to the same discipleship of Christ. Hope this helps.
Click to expand...
Ahhhh… again, in the absence of Spangler, we can’t be sure. But I think I see where Spangler was going, for I had the same suspicion.

The “3rd person” in the OP’s statement, the one claiming that women and men had the same discipleship, may have been implying that women were priests in addition to men. Then the Catholic Church, that bastion of Male-Chauvinism, removed women from the roles of the clergy.

For instance, I recall the mention of a “deaconess”. Some would conclude that a deaconess was simply a deacon who happened to be a woman. Although the Church isn’t sure, but several scholars believe a deaconess was a woman who assisted in the baptism of other women, for proprietary’s sake. Or a deaconess could have been the wife of a deacon.
 
diggerdomer said:
Where is page 513 in the Bible? Can you give a book, chapter, and verse reference?
Click to expand...
Navarre Bible “Gospel and Acts of the Apostles”:chapter 24: verse 13- 37
page 513 is between 512 and 514. Sorry I just could not resist!
 
thomas_jd said:
Navarre Bible “Gospel and Acts of the Apostles”:chapter 24: verse 13- 37
page 513 is between 512 and 514. Sorry I just could not resist!
Click to expand...
Thomas. The Commentary is not Scripture. Digger is asking for a Scripture reference, not someone’s opinion of a Scripture reference.
 
NotWorthy said:
Thomas. The Commentary is not Scripture. Digger is asking for a Scripture reference, not someone’s opinion of a Scripture reference.
Click to expand...
On post #16 it states Navarre footnote.
You won’t find what isn’t there. The Bishops talk is speculative, as the footnote is. I missed your last posting earlier and I agree with your position on the Navarre footnotes.
I never intended anyone to take the footnote as something more than a footnote.
 
thomas_jd said:
On post #16 it states Navarre footnote.
You won’t find what isn’t there. The Bishops talk is speculative, as the footnote is. I missed your last posting earlier and I agree with your position on the Navarre footnotes.
I never intended anyone to take the footnote as something more than a footnote.
Click to expand...
And thus, you are not answering diggerdomer’s query. He may have thought you were trying to answer his request for Scripture by giving commentary. After all, that’s what I thought. 😉
 
NotWorthy said:
And thus, you are not answering diggerdomer’s query. He may have thought you were trying to answer his request for Scripture by giving commentary. After all, that’s what I thought. 😉
Click to expand...
Exactly. Let’s keep in mind the distinction between what Scripture witnesses to and how that witness is interpreted.
 
NotWorthy said:
Ahhhh… again, in the absence of Spangler, we can’t be sure. But I think I see where Spangler was going, for I had the same suspicion.

The “3rd person” in the OP’s statement, the one claiming that women and men had the same discipleship, may have been implying that women were priests in addition to men. Then the Catholic Church, that bastion of Male-Chauvinism, removed women from the roles of the clergy.

For instance, I recall the mention of a “deaconess”. Some would conclude that a deaconess was simply a deacon who happened to be a woman. Although the Church isn’t sure, but several scholars believe a deaconess was a woman who assisted in the baptism of other women, for proprietary’s sake. Or a deaconess could have been the wife of a deacon.
Click to expand...
Thanks. You may be right. Given that the only “priests” referred to in the New Testament are either (1) Jewish/Old Testament priests or (2) Jesus Christ as priest (Hebrews) or (3) all the baptized/faithful as “priestly” such an implication as you suggest would seemingly be left unresolved left only to the New Testament witness.
 
diggerdomer said:
Thanks. You may be right. Given that the only “priests” referred to in the New Testament are either (1) Jewish/Old Testament priests or (2) Jesus Christ as priest (Hebrews) or (3) all the baptized/faithful as “priestly” such an implication as you suggest would seemingly be left unresolved left only to the New Testament witness.
Click to expand...
That is incorrect. Priests [as we know them] are mention in the New Testament. Our English word priest is derived from the Greek word presbuteros which is translated as elder. But presbuteros is transliterated into Latin as presbyter that then becomes proest in Old English and priest in modern English. Also, in the New Testament presbuteros is not used to refer to an Old Testament ‘priest’. Instead the word hiereus is used.
 
inkaneer said:
That is incorrect. Priests [as we know them] are mention in the New Testament. Our English word priest is derived from the Greek word presbuteros which is translated as elder. But presbuteros is transliterated into Latin as presbyter that then becomes proest in Old English and priest in modern English. Also, in the New Testament presbuteros is not used to refer to an Old Testament ‘priest’. Instead the word hiereus is used.
Click to expand...
Yes, but “elder” (presbyteros) does not have the religious/sacrificial connotations that “priest” (hiereus/sacerdos) does for us today. That’s the point. In the New Testament, presbyteros meant, simply, “elder” with no connotation of religious/sacrificial roles (such as Jewish priests, Christ as high priest, priesthood of all faithful)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top