Kay

Mark wrote: “so we have to reconstruct the early ‘heresies’ from what is written within the orthodox… the old ‘history is always written by the winners’ debarkle.”
Mark,
I appreciate your addressing my concerns about the full reliability of the “Church fathers” – it’s refreshing that you and I actually have some ground of agreement. 😉

Mark wrote: “And not only that they show us what was ‘orthodox’ christianity in those years.”

Please bear in mind during discussions here, that was good reason for a Reformation. Huss was burned at the stake for believing the Bible is THE Christian authority and Christ, rather than a pope, is THE head of the Church.

One of the 3 main tenets of the Reformation was the Priesthood of All Believers – I’m sure we both agree.

What I see is that this tenet has not been fully implemented to All Believers. Men are still holding on to a different Priesthood.

Just because verses have been interpreted in a certain way for much of church history does not mean that said interpretation is true – or else we would all still be Roman Catholic. 🙂

Aside from desiring to keep a certain portion of the Priesthood of All Believers for themselves, I find it difficult to see another reason why hierarchists are so sure of interpreting verses 11-14 literally, but not verse 15 which is clearly connected – because taken literally that would be heresy.
Or why comps try to teach that Christ is THE head of Church and that a woman has 2 heads. That is contradictory.

😉 But somehow it’s not heresy to teach the “traditional” interpretation that women are easily deceived and therefore should not be allowed to teach men, so to ruin them as Eve did with Adam.

No where in God’s word does it say there will be only one Reformation.