I thank you for your observations and I don’t normally reply to disagreements with my theology (leads generally to debate and that is something I try to avoid when it comes to religion). However, I would like to respond to your response.
To set the stage:
I’m a Protestant Christian who is a member of an independent fundamentalist church. I believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God and is 1) true from Geneses to Revelation 2) is complete (we need nothing else to guide us in our walk with God 3) Jesus is the son of God and, at the same time, is God.
It doesn’t matter if Paul’s contribution was before, during or after the earthly in the flesh mission of Jesus … Paul made it into the canon of scripture and therefore what he said was inspired by God.
As for women being all over the bible, were they pronounced, elected or chosen to be the heads of the early church? As a mater of fact they were admonished to be silent in church and were never to usurp the authority of men (in the church). The pasture (Bishop) of a church is the ultimate authority and if a woman were the pasture (or head) of any church they would have authority over men.
If a monarch (wasn’t Henry VIII in charge in 1533?) is made the head of a Christian denomination (be they male or female), they are elected by man not God. This being said, if the monarch is a woman and the head of a Christian church it is not necessarily inspired by God.
By the way, I don’t believe that any church has all the correct answers. I believe that the true church is made up of the body of Christ, those that believe that Jesus is God, regardless their denomination, and have asked Him to be their Lord and Savior.
All that I have said is in no way meant to be a rebuke or admonition, just my beliefs from what I have gleaned from God’s word over the past 30 years.
Still waiting ( with bated breath) your response. Was hoping to get a lively debate going.