Christian Discussion Thread XII: Soter? I hardly know her!

[Diarcesia]

Perhaps, but insistence on remaining male priests only is not so much that there's a moral necessity (though some will make that claim sure), but really that the Church doesn't have the purogative to change it. Christ instituted an all male priesthood at the beginning. Whether this was meant to have theological significance or was merely just accordance with the times, doesn't really matter. Absent new revelation from God, the Church has no basis to open the priesthood to women. All we know is what was done, so that is what we must keep doing so as to not override God's will.

It's not that nobody can think of reasons why it can or should be done, it's just not in the realm of their authority to do so. If God were to peel back the heavens and say "one more thing guys, female clergy are groovy" there'd be little hesitation to start ordination of women. But until that happens, this is what we got.

I'm sorry but that's just not how it has ever worked. The Christian Church has gone through twenty centuries worth of changes from what it originally was in the times of Peter and the Apostles, to the point that early Christians would scarce recognize it. To say we can't change something about the Church because God hasn't told us to yet is tantamount to embracing the Protestant heresy of the 'Great Apostasy' by suggesting any change brought about to the Church in the past 2,000 years is essentially "overriding God's will", which is nonsense. You are right that there is no pressing need to change it to avert disaster or whatnot but this doesn't mean the status quo should be maintained at all costs. The Church doesn't have to change it's stance on this issue, no. It doesn't even necessarily need to change it's stance on this issue, no. But it should change it's stance on this issue. Whether the clergy is exclusively male or is open to both sexes isn't, frankly, relevant to the Church's ultimate mission. That being said if women wish to become priests and possess the ability to lead the Church with the humility and grace expected of that position then I see no reason why they should be denied. God has never been shy about condemning things He deems unacceptable. If He truly, vehemently did not wish for there to be priestesses in the Church He would not have hesitated to expressly state as much. Yet He did not, therefor there is no logical reason to assume such a thing would be counter to His will. There is nothing about being a priest that a woman cannot possibly do. The clerical functions do not necessitate the presence of gonads to be performed.

What do you think of Paul's letter to Timothy?

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve.

It's uncontroversial that 1 Timothy is part of the canon and therefore considered divinely inspired.

[Dylar]

I mean, if you taxed televangelist “churches” then you would actually get a substantial amount of income.

I agree with that argument in specific cases like that one but I don't think that broadly taxing churches is good policy because there are easy ways around it, especially for rich people.

plus you also gotta wonder how one would tax churches. Would you tax individual parishes putting the burden on priests, or would you tax the entire diocese and put the burden on the bishops? Would monasteries and convents be included even though a vast majority of their income comes from free will donations to keep the monks fed and the electricity on? and what happens if a parish has barely any congregants such as the National Basilica of Our Lady of Sorrows with only 70 parishioners? Would it be fair to tax those small churches even if they make very little money?

[Suriyanakhon]

I mean, if you taxed televangelist “churches” then you would actually get a substantial amount of income.

I agree with that argument in specific cases like that one but I don't think that broadly taxing churches is good policy because there are easy ways around it, especially for rich people.

From what I understand, churches are tax exempt in America in exchange for them not preaching politics. Televangelists regularly do, so I don't think it's a risk with smaller churches who are just focused on theology.

[Sundiata]

I agree with that argument in specific cases like that one but I don't think that broadly taxing churches is good policy because there are easy ways around it, especially for rich people.

plus you also gotta wonder how one would tax churches. Would you tax individual parishes putting the burden on priests, or would you tax the entire diocese and put the burden on the bishops? Would monasteries and convents be included even though a vast majority of their income comes from free will donations to keep the monks fed and the electricity on? and what happens if a parish has barely any congregants such as the National Basilica of Our Lady of Sorrows with only 70 parishioners? Would it be fair to tax those small churches even if they make very little money?

Exactly, if we were actually serious about taxation instead of targeting Christians we would actually be proposing a 70% value-added tax for Jeff Bezos' superyachts and legally challenge the rich to pay their fair share.

[Sundiata]

I agree with that argument in specific cases like that one but I don't think that broadly taxing churches is good policy because there are easy ways around it, especially for rich people.

From what I understand, churches are tax exempt in America in exchange for them not preaching politics. Televangelists regularly do, so I don't think it's a risk with smaller churches who are just focused on theology.

In that case, don't tax actual churches. Remove the status of these televangelists as churches and tax them.

[Fahran]

P1. If taxation without representation is unfair, then so is the reverse: that representation without taxation is also unfair.

P2: Under the current "separation of church and state" arrangement, the church has enjoyed for centuries the privilege of influencing the state while not being influenced by the state, all without taxation.

C: We must tax the churches to make it fair.

Religious organizations are tax-exempt as 501(c)(3) organizations and must abide by the relevant requirements included in the IRC. This covers a wide variety of different organizations with different purposes, and I'm not certain there's a valid justification for simply removing tax-exempt status from one such entity simply because you dislike that they impact public discourse. Especially when many other such entities do so as well. Scientific, literary, and women's welfare organizations are often counted as 501(c)(3) entities as an example. Churches and mosques aren't voting. Their members are voting. Their members are forming lobbying groups. And their members are taxed.

[Fahran]

plus you also gotta wonder how one would tax churches. Would you tax individual parishes putting the burden on priests, or would you tax the entire diocese and put the burden on the bishops? Would monasteries and convents be included even though a vast majority of their income comes from free will donations to keep the monks fed and the electricity on? and what happens if a parish has barely any congregants such as the National Basilica of Our Lady of Sorrows with only 70 parishioners? Would it be fair to tax those small churches even if they make very little money?

Income tax, at least in the United States, is fairly progressive and based on wherewithal to pay. If, hypothetically, the government were to levy a tax on churches or any other 501(c)(3) entity, since I don't see why the bean counters at the IRS would single out churches aside from to go full-on Plutarco Calles, the burden would be proportionate to net income. And... I suspect a savvy accountant could probably eliminate tax liability altogether by investing in depreciable assets, taking on debt, or using donations to provide services to the parishioners or faithful.

[Fahran]

Also, hi.

I've been wanting to follow the discourse here for a bit now - even as a nonbeliever. I figured I could learn a little bit more since Christianity is probably the Abrahamic faith I know the least about of the Big Three.

[Sundiata]

Also, hi.

I've been wanting to follow the discourse here for a bit now - even as a nonbeliever. I figured I could learn a little bit more since Christianity is probably the Abrahamic faith I know the least about of the Big Three.

What do you want to know?

[Tarsonis]

Perhaps, but insistence on remaining male priests only is not so much that there's a moral necessity (though some will make that claim sure), but really that the Church doesn't have the purogative to change it. Christ instituted an all male priesthood at the beginning. Whether this was meant to have theological significance or was merely just accordance with the times, doesn't really matter. Absent new revelation from God, the Church has no basis to open the priesthood to women. All we know is what was done, so that is what we must keep doing so as to not override God's will.

It's not that nobody can think of reasons why it can or should be done, it's just not in the realm of their authority to do so. If God were to peel back the heavens and say "one more thing guys, female clergy are groovy" there'd be little hesitation to start ordination of women. But until that happens, this is what we got.

I'm sorry but that's just not how it has ever worked. The Christian Church has gone through twenty centuries worth of changes from what it originally was in the times of Peter and the Apostles, to the point that early Christians would scarce recognize it. To say we can't change something about the Church because God hasn't told us to yet is tantamount to embracing the Protestant heresy of the 'Great Apostasy' by suggesting any change brought about to the Church in the past 2,000 years is essentially "overriding God's will", which is nonsense. You are right that there is no pressing need to change it to avert disaster or whatnot but this doesn't mean the status quo should be maintained at all costs. The Church doesn't have to change it's stance on this issue, no. It doesn't even necessarily need to change it's stance on this issue, no. But it should change it's stance on this issue. Whether the clergy is exclusively male or is open to both sexes isn't, frankly, relevant to the Church's ultimate mission. That being said if women wish to become priests and possess the ability to lead the Church with the humility and grace expected of that position then I see no reason why they should be denied. God has never been shy about condemning things He deems unacceptable. If He truly, vehemently did not wish for there to be priestesses in the Church He would not have hesitated to expressly state as much. Yet He did not, therefor there is no logical reason to assume such a thing would be counter to His will. There is nothing about being a priest that a woman cannot possibly do. The clerical functions do not necessitate the presence of gonads to be performed.

Not really no. Because while the Church can change, it can only change certain things, and can only change in certain ways. The house Church early Christians wouldn't recognize the Imperial Church dominating the first millennium, or the fractured Church of the 2nd millennium true enough, but those changes did not undo past ordinations. While no longer meeting in basements to avoid the Roman authories, the modern church still functions much how it did 2000 years ago. The heirarchy is the same, the liturgy is still the same (at least in terms of hitting all the same points). The Church merely adapted from being persecuted to being the imperial religion. The Church can adapt, and progress, but it can't undo what's already been done. Right? we can't go back and say, oh yeah infant baptism were gonna switch to adult baptism only. That would effectively invalidate the Church's claim to orthodoxy over the last 2000 years.

The same is true of Priests, to say Female priests are OK now, would mean that the practice was always ok and thus the Church is invalid for teaching and practicing heresy of only having male priesthood. This is the same problem we have with lobbying the Church on LGBT issues, the Church has very little latitude to change something like that, absent divine revelation. You're talking about a practice that was done at the time of Christ, and continued unbroken for 2000 years. The Church cannot decide that it's time to change that merely because it wants to or because women desire to become priests and social norms tell us that should be okay.

Again, God peeling back the sky and saying "btdubs guys Female priests in the clergy is chic now," is the only way that is gonna happen. Whether you agree with it or not, that his how the Catholic Church sees it, and I'm pretty sure the Orthodox Church agrees, as well, though I invite other Orthodox members to correct me if I'm wrong

[Salus Maior]

Creating it is not the same as defining it. Christ did not write the rules on who can and cannot become a priest; that was Man.

I really don't know how else to explain to you that Christ not picking women is not the same as Christ forbidding women from becoming clergy. You can try to drag out any holy woman from the Bible as an example but it really doesn't work like that. Christ picked the Apostles because they were the right ones for the job, not because they had fucking dicks.

In fist century Judea, swinging a mushroom would actually be important for the task. Patriarchal society and all that.

Christ wasn't restricted by the norms of first century Judea.

This should be obvious by the fact that Jesus told His Judean followers to eat and drink the flesh and blood of a man. Aside from the fact that He's God and He can do whatever He wants.

[Salus Maior]

The Catholics in this thread - rightly - often get a little bit irritated when the Orthodox posting in this thread start to outline to Catholics what they think Catholics believe. I've tried to be much, much, better about this in the last year or two (not necessarily always successfully, I grant).

But could I perhaps gently suggest that the reverse might also apply.

Over time, I've noticed that the Orthodox tendency in these discussions is to emphasise the differences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, while the Catholic tendency is to emphasise the similarities. If we're being honest with each other, both positions are likely driven by internal agendas.

I don't intend to come across as holier than thou (no subcontext intended); I know I've been as guilty of this as anyone, and Matthew 7 and all that. But it does mean that we're often talking past each other, and lecturing each other on what we think the other's position is or should be, which is unhelpful.

I don't really intend to get into specifics here - that's likely counterproductive - but it might help if we could avoid lecturing people on "why are you Orthodox or interested in / sympathetic to Orthodoxy when you disagree with my interpretation of Orthodoxy?". I only ask that you consider how you'd react if an Orthodox Christian was doing the same thing on a regular basis with converts to Catholicism, or individuals considering conversion to Catholicism, and was using Catholic websites to make their point, but was inevitably approaching those websites from an Orthodox understanding. Hackles would likely be raised.

I understand why that would be frustrating generally speaking under any other circumstance, but allow me to defend my position and argument with this; the Apostolic priesthood is something both Orthodox and Catholics share as a tradition and, as I've indicated with said sites, we have almost exactly the same conception of what the priesthood is, what its substance is, and why it is the way it is. Granted, I understand there is a divergence in terms of Papal power but I'd consider that a completely different debate from the male-only priesthood. Understanding that the male-only priesthood is something we share, and have essentially the same conception of (at least I can't see any difference) I think it's a bit silly to suggest a Catholic can't argue for it the same as an Orthodox could in either of our Churches.

[Tarsonis]

In fist century Judea, swinging a mushroom would actually be important for the task. Patriarchal society and all that.

Christ wasn't restricted by the norms of first century Judea.

This should be obvious by the fact that Jesus told His Judean followers to eat and drink the flesh and blood of a man. Aside from the fact that He's God and He can do whatever He wants.

He himself? No. But his adeherents? A lot more so. Remember they have to go out into the world and spread the gospel. Women we're not highly regarded as authorities on anything in that time, and likely would have been ignored.

I'm reminded of a story about Buddha, in which he was questioned why he ordained only males to be priests, if gender was an illusion as he taught. His response was basically necessity. If he had held women up to the same level as men, in that society, the message would have died as they would all be put to the sword. A new movement can only rock the boat so much before the establishment hits back. Holding women to be in equal station of men, and having power of instruction over men, would be very challenging to the cultural order, and bring considerable wrath.

This is often discussed regarding the discrepancy of St. Paul's early egalitarian writings, and his later much more traditional writings.

[Salus Maior]

I'm sorry but that's just not how it has ever worked. The Christian Church has gone through twenty centuries worth of changes from what it originally was in the times of Peter and the Apostles, to the point that early Christians would scarce recognize it. To say we can't change something about the Church because God hasn't told us to yet is tantamount to embracing the Protestant heresy of the 'Great Apostasy' by suggesting any change brought about to the Church in the past 2,000 years is essentially "overriding God's will", which is nonsense. You are right that there is no pressing need to change it to avert disaster or whatnot but this doesn't mean the status quo should be maintained at all costs. The Church doesn't have to change it's stance on this issue, no. It doesn't even necessarily need to change it's stance on this issue, no. But it should change it's stance on this issue. Whether the clergy is exclusively male or is open to both sexes isn't, frankly, relevant to the Church's ultimate mission. That being said if women wish to become priests and possess the ability to lead the Church with the humility and grace expected of that position then I see no reason why they should be denied. God has never been shy about condemning things He deems unacceptable. If He truly, vehemently did not wish for there to be priestesses in the Church He would not have hesitated to expressly state as much. Yet He did not, therefor there is no logical reason to assume such a thing would be counter to His will. There is nothing about being a priest that a woman cannot possibly do. The clerical functions do not necessitate the presence of gonads to be performed.

The "God didn't expressly condemn it so it must be ok" argument isn't a strong or compelling one. There are plenty of things we know are wrong that Jesus did not expressly preach about (and of course, you don't know if He didn't say anything about it because not everything Jesus said is written down, hence the necessity for Holy Tradition, which you've completely ignored in this whole discourse despite its importance). For example, does God have anything against child marriage? And if so, where do we get that moral sense from?

[Salus Maior]

Christ wasn't restricted by the norms of first century Judea.

This should be obvious by the fact that Jesus told His Judean followers to eat and drink the flesh and blood of a man. Aside from the fact that He's God and He can do whatever He wants.

He himself? No. But his adeherents? A lot more so. Remember they have to go out into the world and spread the gospel. Women we're not highly regarded as authorities on anything in that time, and likely would have been ignored.

I'm reminded of a story about Buddha, in which he was questioned why he ordained only males to be priests, if gender was an illusion as he taught. His response was basically necessity. If he had held women up to the same level as men, in that society, the message would have died as they would all be put to the sword. A new movement can only rock the boat so much before the establishment hits back. Holding women to be in equal station of men, and having power of instruction over men, would be very challenging to the cultural order, and bring considerable wrath.

This is often discussed regarding the discrepancy of St. Paul's early egalitarian writings, and his later much more traditional writings.

Priestesses existed in the pagan religions of the era, so suggesting that women could act as priests and conduct sacraments would not be an issue to most cultures at the time. Monotheism would have been a harder pill to swallow than a female priesthood, and it was considering how many Christians ended up dead for being Christians. If it weren't for Constantine, Christianity would have remained fringe.

[Salus Maior]

That being said if women wish to become priests and possess the ability to lead the Church with the humility and grace expected of that position then I see no reason why they should be denied. God has never been shy about condemning things He deems unacceptable. If He truly, vehemently did not wish for there to be priestesses in the Church He would not have hesitated to expressly state as much. Yet He did not, therefor there is no logical reason to assume such a thing would be counter to His will. There is nothing about being a priest that a woman cannot possibly do. The clerical functions do not necessitate the presence of gonads to be performed.

Peter: Prince of the Apostles, and notably graceful and humble and not a complete mess of a man even directly before his death.

Maybe your conceptions about what the priesthood is, isn't what God's conception of it is. Again it has nothing to do with talent or "right", and so it's irrelevant that a woman can do everything a man can do.

[Tarsonis]

He himself? No. But his adeherents? A lot more so. Remember they have to go out into the world and spread the gospel. Women we're not highly regarded as authorities on anything in that time, and likely would have been ignored.

I'm reminded of a story about Buddha, in which he was questioned why he ordained only males to be priests, if gender was an illusion as he taught. His response was basically necessity. If he had held women up to the same level as men, in that society, the message would have died as they would all be put to the sword. A new movement can only rock the boat so much before the establishment hits back. Holding women to be in equal station of men, and having power of instruction over men, would be very challenging to the cultural order, and bring considerable wrath.

This is often discussed regarding the discrepancy of St. Paul's early egalitarian writings, and his later much more traditional writings.

Priestesses existed in the pagan religions of the era, so suggesting that women could act as priests and conduct sacraments would not be an issue to most cultures at the time. Monotheism would have been a harder pill to swallow than a female priesthood, and it was considering how many Christians ended up dead for being Christians. If it weren't for Constantine, Christianity would have remained fringe.

In Judea? no there weren't. Priests were all male. In greater Rome? I'm not an expert on Roman paganism but best I can find were the Vestal Virgins which were a unique subset, and more caretakers of the flame of Vesta rather than the typical priests.

No there really was not an acceptance of female priests as we would understand the apostolic role.

[Salus Maior]

Priestesses existed in the pagan religions of the era, so suggesting that women could act as priests and conduct sacraments would not be an issue to most cultures at the time. Monotheism would have been a harder pill to swallow than a female priesthood, and it was considering how many Christians ended up dead for being Christians. If it weren't for Constantine, Christianity would have remained fringe.

In Judea? no there weren't. Priests were all male. In greater Rome? I'm not an expert on Roman paganism but best I can find were the Vestal Virgins which were a unique subset, and more caretakers of the flame of Vesta rather than the typical priests.

No there really was not an acceptance of female priests as we would understand the apostolic role.

As I'm sure you're aware, Jesus never intended His followers remain in Judea alone and Christianity quickly took root elsewhere so I don't really see the point about harping about Judea, especially when Christians were already being persecuted there, banned from the Temple, and forced to live in a commune outside of Jerusalem. And further, what we understand about the Mary Magdalene's life traditionally she did take on the role of a missionary who assumedly had followers in southern Gaul, so some of Jesus's female disciples apparently did have some leadership despite not being Apostles. And again, not to mention that God can do whatever He wants, and if that means making women Apostles, the biases of Judeans or Romans wouldn't matter. He would have given them that authority and what divine inspiration they needed to do what they needed to do.

Also, in the Greek pagan tradition priestesses were more common. And apparently they held their positions up until Rome Christianized, so priestesses did have an accepted place in Greco-Roman society.

[Tarsonis]

In Judea? no there weren't. Priests were all male. In greater Rome? I'm not an expert on Roman paganism but best I can find were the Vestal Virgins which were a unique subset, and more caretakers of the flame of Vesta rather than the typical priests.

No there really was not an acceptance of female priests as we would understand the apostolic role.

As I'm sure you're aware, Jesus never intended His followers remain in Judea alone and Christianity quickly took root elsewhere so I don't really see the point about harping about Judea, especially when Christians were already being persecuted there, banned from the Temple, and forced to live in a commune outside of Jerusalem. And further, what we understand about the Mary Magdalene's life traditionally she did take on the role of a missionary who assumedly had followers in southern Gaul, so some of Jesus's female disciples apparently did have some leadership despite not being Apostles. And again, not to mention that God can do whatever He wants, and if that means making women Apostles, the biases of Judeans or Romans wouldn't matter. He would have given them that authority and what divine inspiration they needed to do what they needed to do.

Also, in the Greek pagan tradition priestesses were more common. And apparently they held their positions up until Rome Christianized, so priestesses did have an accepted place in Greco-Roman society.

I'm not an expert on the pagan religions, but the existence of priesteses in the Greek areas doesn't mean that female Apostles would be readily accepted, especially teaching a faith in opposition to what they already believed. Further just because they were to leave Judea, didn't mean they ignored their upbringing. They still taught in accordance with their Judaic traditions and helenized Jews in other provinces were still a target of evangelization.

Lastly, God being able to do whatever He wants isn't really relevant. God doesn't override free will, so even if he wanted to make female priests, it still wouldn't mute the practical challenges a female priesthood would bring.

I don't know why you're so set on absolving the first century of its patriarchal cultures, it's a losing errand.

[Salus Maior]

As I'm sure you're aware, Jesus never intended His followers remain in Judea alone and Christianity quickly took root elsewhere so I don't really see the point about harping about Judea, especially when Christians were already being persecuted there, banned from the Temple, and forced to live in a commune outside of Jerusalem. And further, what we understand about the Mary Magdalene's life traditionally she did take on the role of a missionary who assumedly had followers in southern Gaul, so some of Jesus's female disciples apparently did have some leadership despite not being Apostles. And again, not to mention that God can do whatever He wants, and if that means making women Apostles, the biases of Judeans or Romans wouldn't matter. He would have given them that authority and what divine inspiration they needed to do what they needed to do.

Also, in the Greek pagan tradition priestesses were more common. And apparently they held their positions up until Rome Christianized, so priestesses did have an accepted place in Greco-Roman society.

I'm not an expert on the pagan religions, but the existence of priesteses in the Greek areas doesn't mean that female Apostles would be readily accepted, especially teaching a faith in opposition to what they already believed. Further just because they were to leave Judea, didn't mean they ignored their upbringing. They still taught in accordance with their Judaic traditions and helenized Jews in other provinces were still a target of evangelization.

Lastly, God being able to do whatever He wants isn't really relevant. God doesn't override free will, so even if he wanted to make female priests, it still wouldn't mute the practical challenges a female priesthood would bring.

I don't know why you're so set on absolving the first century of its patriarchal cultures, it's a losing errand.

I'm not trying to do that, what I am trying to say is that God would have overcome the Roman Empire one way or another, with or without women priests. Considering He did anyway with all the things already holding Christianity back from acceptance in the culture like monotheism, the Eucharist, conscientious objection, and not venerating the Emperor as divine.

[Tarsonis]

I'm not an expert on the pagan religions, but the existence of priesteses in the Greek areas doesn't mean that female Apostles would be readily accepted, especially teaching a faith in opposition to what they already believed. Further just because they were to leave Judea, didn't mean they ignored their upbringing. They still taught in accordance with their Judaic traditions and helenized Jews in other provinces were still a target of evangelization.

Lastly, God being able to do whatever He wants isn't really relevant. God doesn't override free will, so even if he wanted to make female priests, it still wouldn't mute the practical challenges a female priesthood would bring.

I don't know why you're so set on absolving the first century of its patriarchal cultures, it's a losing errand.

I'm not trying to do that, what I am trying to say is that God would have overcome the Roman Empire one way or another, with or without women priests. Considering He did anyway with all the things already holding Christianity back from acceptance in the culture like monotheism, the Eucharist, conscientious objection, and not venerating the Emperor as divine.

Sure. But instead the Apostles were sent in accordance with the world they lived in, as St. Paul said, to Jews as a Jew to gentiles as a gentile. We trust His wisdom in doing so.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Priestesses existed in the pagan religions of the era, so suggesting that women could act as priests and conduct sacraments would not be an issue to most cultures at the time. Monotheism would have been a harder pill to swallow than a female priesthood, and it was considering how many Christians ended up dead for being Christians. If it weren't for Constantine, Christianity would have remained fringe.

In Judea? no there weren't. Priests were all male. In greater Rome? I'm not an expert on Roman paganism but best I can find were the Vestal Virgins which were a unique subset, and more caretakers of the flame of Vesta rather than the typical priests.

No there really was not an acceptance of female priests as we would understand the apostolic role.

The Vestals were absolutely priestesses, and female priestesses existed beyond their order in the Hellenic world. The Sibyls held power across the entire Hellenic world, the highest religious office in Athens proper was held by a woman, the Eleusinian Mysteries had women serve as priestesses for some roles, the Roman cults to Bona Dea, Ceres and Liber (and some others, iirc) were also officiated by women.

To my understanding both Syria and Egypt of the time had female priests as well so the concept would not have been unknown in Judea.

[Tarsonis]

In Judea? no there weren't. Priests were all male. In greater Rome? I'm not an expert on Roman paganism but best I can find were the Vestal Virgins which were a unique subset, and more caretakers of the flame of Vesta rather than the typical priests.

No there really was not an acceptance of female priests as we would understand the apostolic role.

The Vestals were absolutely priestesses, and female priestesses existed beyond their order in the Hellenic world. The Sibyls held power across the entire Hellenic world, the highest religious office in Athens proper was held by a woman, the Eleusinian Mysteries had women serve as priestesses for some roles, the Roman cults to Bona Dea, Ceres and Liber (and some others, iirc) were also officiated by women.

To my understanding both Syria and Egypt of the time had female priests as well so the concept would not have been unknown in Judea.

Not unknown, but Judeans would have looked down on that as hethenry. They were kina ornery like that. As I conceded I don't know much about how the various pagan religions operated, but I don't think the point is undermined that female Apostles would not be nearly as well received as men,. Further more, the proliferation of female priesthoods at the time only the strengthens the argument that the Christian Priesthood is intentionally male.

[Washington Resistance Army]

The Vestals were absolutely priestesses, and female priestesses existed beyond their order in the Hellenic world. The Sibyls held power across the entire Hellenic world, the highest religious office in Athens proper was held by a woman, the Eleusinian Mysteries had women serve as priestesses for some roles, the Roman cults to Bona Dea, Ceres and Liber (and some others, iirc) were also officiated by women.

To my understanding both Syria and Egypt of the time had female priests as well so the concept would not have been unknown in Judea.

Not unknown, but Judeans would have looked down on that as hethenry. They were kina ornery like that. As I conceded I don't know much about how the various pagan religions operated, but I don't think the point is undermined that female Apostles would not be nearly as well received as men,. Further more, the proliferation of female priesthoods at the time only the strengthens the argument that the Christian Priesthood is intentionally male.

That I would agree with, the historical arguments about potential priestesses in very early Christianity is an interesting topic but it just doesn't seem like it was an important or widespread practice and the priesthood was always associated with men. At least from this outsiders opinion it seems pretty clear where Christian tradition on the topic lands; I just wanted to point out that the early Christians absolutely would have known of the idea of women taking a leading role in religion because of how widespread it was in Hellenism and the other nearby regional faiths.

[Salus Maior]

Not unknown, but Judeans would have looked down on that as hethenry.

As would eating non-kosher food, not getting circumcized, and the idea of the Eucharist.