Women cannot have authority in the congregation.

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Mar 28, 2016
15,954
1,528
113
Nope. 12 men and the “inner circle” was Peter, James and John.

At one point Jesus sent out 70 - probably men and women - maybe but, the moment Jesus speaks of eating His flesh and drinking His blood everyone leaves except the 12.
Hope you don't mind.

Good point 70 apostles

The twelve were continually receiving the understanding of parables like that. (eating His flesh and drinking His blood ) It is revealed in the old testament.

The 12 Apostles as mighty men of old were moved and they passed the understanding on to other believers. But the power to believe God was never of them . They plant and water the seed with the doctrines of God. God gives the Spirit life that can cause growth.

Sends out two, by two. . baptizing in the name of the lord. Two represent the work of one .(the father and the Son .

In that way two represent the integrity of the word of God. (the witness of two.)

When two (husband and wife) or three (a family with children) gather together under the authority of his name, he is there working in them , teaching, comforting and bringing to mind that which has taught us.

12 is used to represent the full authority of God choosing twelve a remnant of all the apostles listed 27 is used in a parable found in Revelation 21.
 
G

Gerlinde24

Guest
Hope you don't mind.

Good point 70 apostles

The twelve were continually receiving the understanding of parables like that. (eating His flesh and drinking His blood ) It is revealed in the old testament.

The 12 Apostles as mighty men of old were moved and they passed the understanding on to other believers. But the power to believe God was never of them . They plant and water the seed with the doctrines of God. God gives the Spirit life that can cause growth.

Sends out two, by two. . baptizing in the name of the lord. Two represent the work of one .(the father and the Son .

In that way two represent the integrity of the word of God. (the witness of two.)

When two (husband and wife) or three (a family with children) gather together under the authority of his name, he is there working in them , teaching, comforting and bringing to mind that which has taught us.

12 is used to represent the full authority of God choosing twelve a remnant of all the apostles listed 27 is used in a parable found in Revelation 21.
The seventy that were mentioned in the Bible are NOT APOSTLES! They are seventies. They had very different tasks than Apostles!
Why is it so difficult for some to comprehend that there were also women as apostles? Because you only know the known twelve men? And why then Paul mentioned that Junia was one of the apostles, he whom some Christians consider to be a misogynist, even though he was never?
Finally, use your God-given mind, folks!

Addendum: Paul did not attend the sacrament with Jesus, so he did not eat his "meat" or drink his "blood", and yet he is an apostle because God had called him an apostle.
 
S

Scribe

Guest
The seventy that were mentioned in the Bible are NOT APOSTLES! They are seventies. They had very different tasks than Apostles!
The criteria for replacing Judas that Peter gave in Acts 1 concerning those that had been with them all that time...
"Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us, beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.”
...This would suggest that those who were called apostles in the book of Acts that were not of the 12 here that Peter was referring to might have been from among the 70 or those that had been a witness of his resurrection also. So Barnabas was called and apostle and it may be that he had been one of the 70. (72 by some sources)
Why is it so difficult for some to comprehend that there were also women as apostles? Because you only know the known twelve men? And why then Paul mentioned that Junia was one of the apostles, he whom some Christians consider to be a misogynist, even though he was never? Finally, use your God-given mind, folks!
The exact quote is not all that clear:
Romans 16:7 Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.
I think the majority of Greek scholars agree that the name Junia was indeed female. However the phrase "who are of note among the apostles" could mean that they were known by and held in high esteem by the apostles, or that that they themselves were apostles that were held in high esteem by other apostles or that they were known for their ministry activity as apostles, it is not so easy to say which is meant. It is not such a clear case of undisputed fact as you seem to suggest that this proves that Junia was an apostle rather than known and highly esteemed among the apostles. This has been hashed and rehashed by scholars for centuries. I have a great deal of respect for the intellectual honesty of F.F. Bruce who is a well known scholar and without being conclusive on it he gives strong evidence for interpreting it as calling her an apostle but leave room for interpreting either way. So there is every reason to be reserved in our judgment and no reason to accuse those who are not convinced of not using their brain. They may in fact be using much more than the rest of us if they are expert in Greek.

Addendum: Paul did not attend the sacrament with Jesus, so he did not eat his "meat" or drink his "blood", and yet he is an apostle because God had called him an apostle.
I don't know of any scripture that says that being at the Lords Supper was the criteria for being an apostle. However witnessing his resurrection does appear to be a criteria mentioned by both Peter in Acts 1 and Paul when he gives his reason for being an apostle.
1 Cor 15
5And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: 6After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. 7After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. 8And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. 9For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
Notice the connection between his Seeing the resurrected Christ and calling himself an apostle as the others who had seen Christ resurrected.
And also in 1 Cor 9:1 Am I not an apostle? ...have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?...

So it is my understanding that Apostles laid the foundation of the church and were those who had witnessed the resurrection though not all that witnessed the resurrection were an apostle. Paul was an apostle because he SAW THE LORD who made a special visit to him on the road to Damascus. Therefore I conclude that there are no Apostles in the church today, they are simply Pastors, Teachers, Evangelists, Prophets and those that want to call themselves Apostles are confused or arrogant.
 
G

Gerlinde24

Guest
The exact quote is not all that clear:
Romans 16:7 Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.
I think the majority of Greek scholars agree that the name Junia was indeed female. However the phrase "who are of note among the apostles" could mean that they were known by and held in high esteem by the apostles, or that that they themselves were apostles that were held in high esteem by other apostles or that they were known for their ministry activity as apostles, it is not so easy to say which is meant. It is not such a clear case of undisputed fact as you seem to suggest that this proves that Junia was an apostle rather than known and highly esteemed among the apostles. This has been hashed and rehashed by scholars for centuries. I have a great deal of respect for the intellectual honesty of F.F. Bruce who is a well known scholar and without being conclusive on it he gives strong evidence for interpreting it as calling her an apostle but leave room for interpreting either way. So there is every reason to be reserved in our judgment and no reason to accuse those who are not convinced of not using their brain. They may in fact be using much more than the rest of us if they are expert in Greek.
I would like to take the following into account:

If Junia was not an Apostle, why did Church fathers like John Chrysostomos (344-407 A.D.) call her an apostle, even "excellent among the apostles"?
Why don't you accept the other way to read? According to Wikipedia (german):

The second question about the meaning of the phrase "considered among the apostles" arises independently of the reading of the name. Two interpretations are possible:

inclusive: Andronicus and Junia are Apostles;
Exclusive: the Apostles have a high opinion of Andronicus and Junia.

Since the Old Church, the inclusive reading has been predominant. (...) Scientific exegesis has largely subscribed to this. (The term apostle is to be understood as Paul uses it.) Wilckens sums up the development in this way: "The fact that a married couple, a man and a woman, are both "apostles", has only seemed so unbelievable since the Middle Ages that instead of The Woman Junia one should read a man named Junius. In the whole Old Church, no one was right to offend."
Source: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junia_(Apostel)

Although some Biblical scholars believe more of the exclusive interpretation (including the KJV), there is no evidence that Junia was well known among the Apostles from the original text, which is available in the Vienna University Library as a copy from the 1st century.
So, before writing please turn on the brain and check your own statements.
 
G

Gerlinde24

Guest
Here is the correct translation of Romans 16:7:

"Greet Andronicus and Junias, who belong to my people and were in prison with me; they are distinguished apostles and have already confessed to Christ before me" (Romans 16:7).

This translation is based on the international and interdenominational Greek edition of the Greek New Testament (= GNT, 1st edition 1965), published by the United Bible Societies.
 
S

Scribe

Guest
I would like to take the following into account:

If Junia was not an Apostle, why did Church fathers like John Chrysostomos (344-407 A.D.) call her an apostle, even "excellent among the apostles"?
Why don't you accept the other way to read? According to Wikipedia (german):

Source: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junia_(Apostel)

Although some Biblical scholars believe more of the exclusive interpretation (including the KJV), there is no evidence that Junia was well known among the Apostles from the original text, which is available in the Vienna University Library as a copy from the 1st century.
So, before writing please turn on the brain and check your own statements.
Nothing you have posted contradicts what I stated. I do lean toward the interpretation that she was doing the ministry of an apostle and whether she was the wife of Adronicus I do not think can be known. It can be guessed at, it can be speculated but at the end of the day it is still only conjecture. It would be just as "brain worthy" to not decide one way or the other on their relationship other than they were the kinsmen of Paul. Church "fathers" or early church writers had many opinions about many things that are not embraced by proper heremeneutics. They were men with faults. Greek scholars are not united on which interpretation is meant. Note among the apostles is a good translation as well as "oustanding among the apostles", "noteworthy among the apostles" These are all good translations. And as I stated before after reading F. F. Bruce explanation on the Greek I was more persuaded that she was actually doing the work of an apostle and respected as one among them.

Now putting that topic aside for just a moment, there is something much more important I think we should address tonight. Your statement "So, before writing please turn on the brain and check your own statements." will not accomplish your objective of effectively communicating your ideas to other people. I am not sure how they communicate in Germany but most people will stop listening to anything you have to say when you make such statements to them. If you want your ideas to be heard politeness and "talking to others the way you would like to be talked to" is a golden rule.

I always look over my posts and think to myself "would I like it if someone said that to me?" and if the answer is no, I cut it out or change it so that it does not sound rude and provoking.

Now if your objective IS to be rude, hateful, demeaning, and call some one stupid if they do not agree with you then go ahead and keep talking like that, you are accomplishing your objective.
 
S

Scribe

Guest
Here is the correct translation of Romans 16:7:

"Greet Andronicus and Junias, who belong to my people and were in prison with me; they are distinguished apostles and have already confessed to Christ before me" (Romans 16:7).
This translation is based on the international and interdenominational Greek edition of the Greek New Testament (= GNT, 1st edition 1965), published by the United Bible Societies.
My brain says to be highly skeptical of that translation as it does not agree with anything I have read on the Greek from other scholars who have written about it that I have read so far. And it does not match any of the translations listed among all those one can compare with in an app like Bible Hub.

Seems strange that all those hundreds of Greek scholars behind all those English translations did not translate it that way. My brain turns on and say. RED ALERT!! SUSPECT!! SUSPECT!! SUSPECT!! :love:
 
Mar 28, 2016
15,954
1,528
113
The seventy that were mentioned in the Bible are NOT APOSTLES! They are seventies. They had very different tasks than Apostles!
Why is it so difficult for some to comprehend that there were also women as apostles? Because you only know the known twelve men? And why then Paul mentioned that Junia was one of the apostles, he whom some Christians consider to be a misogynist, even though he was never?
Finally, use your God-given mind, folks!

Addendum: Paul did not attend the sacrament with Jesus, so he did not eat his "meat" or drink his "blood", and yet he is an apostle because God had called him an apostle.

Different tasks. . more than being sent with the power of the word (not of the apostles) ? What other tasks?

Catholicism destroyed the meaning of the word "apostle" (sent one) so they could Lord it over the pew sitters. like many words in the Bible making the word "apostle" to no effect.

Once the word is understood properly then its easier to find the context .

The first recorded apostle as a prophet is Abel . He was sent with the good news the seed(Christ) and planted it. But His brother Cain had no faith to believe God. Cain took Abel into the field and plowed him under . This is under the foundation of Paganism . . "Out of sight out of mind". As if God did not see

Satan is a murdering from the beginning .Satan's first murder working in Cain to both will and do the evil .

Abel is also the first martyr recorded.

The 12 were set aside as holy to be used in parables defining the bride in Revelation 21.
 
G

Gerlinde24

Guest
My brain says to be highly skeptical of that translation as it does not agree with anything I have read on the Greek from other scholars who have written about it that I have read so far. And it does not match any of the translations listed among all those one can compare with in an app like Bible Hub.

Seems strange that all those hundreds of Greek scholars behind all those English translations did not translate it that way. My brain turns on and say. RED ALERT!! SUSPECT!! SUSPECT!! SUSPECT!! :love:
Just because you don't like this correct translation of the Original Greek text doesn't mean it's been translated incorrectly. The translation was attended by several experts of the ancient Greek language, experts from different countries.
I want to tell you a little true story from my life at the JW:

JW believe that Jesus died not at a cross, but at a stake. I believed this for years, until I found a photograph of a drawing of a Roman wall in a book about the Roman Empire (ascension and fall of the Roman Empire), where someone made fun of a Christian. The drawing from the 1st century showed a Christ with a donkey's head on the cross. I showed the book with the picture to an elder.
This elder told me that this photo was a forgery, and that only the depiction of Christ on the stake was correct. An answer that did not satisfy me.
Without the knowledge of the elders, I went to a library, borrowed and ordered books on early Christianity and ancient Rome, and found that the idea of the JW was wrong.
I confronted the elders with it, and they threatened me with excommunication if I continued to believe it and show it to others in the congregation.
For me, this was the beginning of doubting the teachings of the JW.
And the beginning of the search for truth, and the search for the "right" religion in which I still find myself.
 
S

Scribe

Guest
Just because you don't like this correct translation of the Original Greek text doesn't mean it's been translated incorrectly. The translation was attended by several experts of the ancient Greek language, experts from different countries.
I want to tell you a little true story from my life at the JW:

JW believe that Jesus died not at a cross, but at a stake. I believed this for years, until I found a photograph of a drawing of a Roman wall in a book about the Roman Empire (ascension and fall of the Roman Empire), where someone made fun of a Christian. The drawing from the 1st century showed a Christ with a donkey's head on the cross. I showed the book with the picture to an elder.
This elder told me that this photo was a forgery, and that only the depiction of Christ on the stake was correct. An answer that did not satisfy me.
Without the knowledge of the elders, I went to a library, borrowed and ordered books on early Christianity and ancient Rome, and found that the idea of the JW was wrong.
I confronted the elders with it, and they threatened me with excommunication if I continued to believe it and show it to others in the congregation.
For me, this was the beginning of doubting the teachings of the JW.
And the beginning of the search for truth, and the search for the "right" religion in which I still find myself.
Searching out the truth is commendable. :)

You did not address my logic of why all the other English translations do not translate the original Greek as "they are distinguished apostles" and if it that was what the Greek said there would not have been volumes written through the centuries discussing it. I am not a Greek scholar and after 3 years of Greek I still will not equal the Greek scholars behind all of the English Translations you can check on Bible Hub. So why would you feel comfortable choosing this one translation over all those other English Translations? Is it because it says what you want it to say? Are you being intellectually honest in your pursuit of THIS answer as to what this verse says? I am going to have to trust those who know more than me on the Greek until I have completed my Greek classes, but for now I would trust the majority of English translations in this case.
 
G

Gerlinde24

Guest
Different tasks. . more than being sent with the power of the word (not of the apostles) ? What other tasks?

Catholicism destroyed the meaning of the word "apostle" (sent one) so they could Lord it over the pew sitters. like many words in the Bible making the word "apostle" to no effect.
The biblical women Junia and Phoebe.
Without home law in the Roman Catholic Church?
A contribution by Prof. Dr. Michael Theobald, Tübingen
(from the "Catholic Sunday Gazette" No. 13, 25 March 2012)
I translate it excerpts:

Were there female deacons and apostles in the early Church? This question at the beginning of the year to our readers. In letters to the editor, they eagerly discussed a controversial passage in the Epistle to the Romans, in which Paul referred to the "Servant Phoebe" and the Apostles Andronicus and Junias (Rom 16:1f.7). The fact that the "respected apostle" Junias, as exegetes know today, is based on a mistranslation and was actually a Junia is crucial for the role of women in the Church. The Tübingen New Testament era Michael Theobald explains the situation. (...)
The history of interpretation of Romans 16,7 shows how overwhelming tradition can weigh on Scripture. Until recently, it seemed clear that this is not about one man and a woman, but about two men, as the text of the 1979 initiating translation shows: "Greetings Andronicus and Junias, who belong to my people and were in prison with me; they are distinguished apostles and have already confessed to Christ before me" (Romans 16:7).
This translation is based on the United Bible Societies international and interdenominational Greek edition of the Greek New Testament (= GNT, 1st edition 1965), in whose editorial committee since the 2nd edition (1968) in the person of Carlo Martini, the former cardinal of Milan, also the Catholic side entered. In Rome, this edition is recognized as a basis for translation for the Catholic area, especially since the Neovulgata (1979), the official Latin translation of the Church, is also oriented towards it. The GNT , as well as the Novum Testamentum Graece of Nestle-Aland (= NA) – now read the ambiguous Greek word IOYNIAN in Rom 16,7 as Iounon = Junias, not (which would have been possible) as Ioun'an = Junia. In the meantime, both editions have been reversed for important reasons, as we shall see in a good time – first Nestle-Aland (in the 5th edition of the 27th edition) in 1998, followed by GNT – in order to give preference to the woman named Junia. (...)
Everything, as the attentive reader will have noticed, depends on an accent. It is important to note that Greek manuscripts in lowercase letters and accents (so-called minuscules) were only used in the 9th century. Until then, the Bible texts were written in capital letters, which in our case looked like: IOYNIAN. This form does not indicate whether the word is male or female, but the matter is clear:
A male name in the form of Junius is unknown to the whole of antiquity, which is why the way out, it is a short form of "Junianus", is not feasible.
For this, the woman's name was widely used; In Rome alone it can be found on more than 250 Greek and Latin inscriptions. So there is no doubt: the addressees of the letter knew that a married couple is meant here, namely Andronicus and Junia, as a few verses before also with Aquila and Priscilla (Romans 16:3f.). In general, couples played an important role in the mission of the early Church, just think of Peter and his wife whose names we unfortunately do not know (1Cor 9:5; cf. Mark 1:30).
Moreover, the Greek Fathers of the Church, for example Chrysostom, confirm the female understanding of the name, which was also common in the West until the 13th century. The Greek Orthodox Church still commits "the memory of the holy apostles Andronicus and Junia" every year on 17 May. But this is where the resistance to this reading ignites.
How is this to be possible that a woman and her husband also belonged to the circle of apostles? Dogmatists like to dismiss: "Apart from the hypothetical nature of this thesis," Cardinal Kasper said in 2011, "it is no more than that a woman was an emissary of the church, but not an apostle in the true sense of the word" (p. 535). I do not agree!
Here, too, the standard one-size-fits-all translation is misleading. Their improvement reads: "Andronicus and Junia [...]; they stand out among the apostles and have already confessed themselves to Christ before me". If Paul means "emissaries of the churches", he also says this: 2Cor 8,23; Phil 2.25.
On the other hand, does he mean the Easter- Witnesses, to whom the Risen One appeared in order to to authorize the proclamation of the Gospel, he speaks of "the Apostles" as a certain group of people, without any supplementation (cf. 1Cor 15:7.9; Gal 1,17.19; 1Cor 9,5, but also 1Cor 4,9; 12,28). This circle is meant here (cf. Gal 1:17: "the apostles before me"). With the "Twelve" – Jesus had in his lifetime in a prophetic symbol twelve men as representatives of the twelve-tribe of Israel he had chosen to gather (cf. Mark 3:16; John 6,70 etc.) – the Easter circle of "the Apostles" had nothing to do originally (cf. 1Cor 15:5.7).
This circle was larger than that of the "Twelve" and could also include women, as Romans 16:7 shows (cf. also Jn 20:18 the Easter witness Mary Magdalene as "apostola apostolorum"). Only afterwards were both circles merged into the "twelve apostles", as in Luke's
who therefore also has difficulties in the Acts of the Apostles in integrating "his" Paul. He prefers to speak of the (thirteenth) "witness".
Now the Apostolic Exhortation of Pope John Paul II,'s 1994 Apostolic Letter ,Ordinatio Sacerdotalis', which is the responsibility of Cardinal Ratzinger, then Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, invokes the exclusion of women from the priesthood, above all on the fact that only men belong to the circle of "the Apostles", which is obviously not true. For the "twelve" are not identical with "the apostles". This means that we are faced with a fatal situation: A decision "so high-level in terms of the degree of authority, to which Walter Cardinal Kasper declares that "I can hardly imagine a change in the church's teaching", claims in the result "binding and final character" (Catholic Church, p. 339f.), is flawed in its reasoning.
This inner inconsistency, which also concerns other points, explains why the discussion about the ordination of women, even though Rome wanted to see it as definitively over, keeps flaring up again and again.
At present, no one knows how to deal with this serious mortgage from the point of view of many theologians (a quasi-infallible decision with erroneous justification) – unless one hides the aporia. (...)
As you can see, even the Catholic Church refuses to acknowledge facts and draw the consequences from them, despite the shortage of priests, sex scandals and money scandals, as well as cover-ups of cases of child abuse, even under the new Pope Francis. In Argentina, he covered child abusers as a cardinal.
What does that tell us?

1. Accept facts that are proven, even if it hurts, and old beliefs must be thrown overboard.

2. In every church, women have the right to become clergy, and also to make a career in the Church.

3. Rethinking the image of women in the Bible, ask yourself whether women should choose their own way? Not every woman wants to be a wife and a mother!

4. For the Catholic Church: Finally give up forced celibacy!
 
G

Gerlinde24

Guest
Searching out the truth is commendable. :)

You did not address my logic of why all the other English translations do not translate the original Greek as "they are distinguished apostles" and if it that was what the Greek said there would not have been volumes written through the centuries discussing it. I am not a Greek scholar and after 3 years of Greek I still will not equal the Greek scholars behind all of the English Translations you can check on Bible Hub. So why would you feel comfortable choosing this one translation over all those other English Translations? Is it because it says what you want it to say? Are you being intellectually honest in your pursuit of THIS answer as to what this verse says? I am going to have to trust those who know more than me on the Greek until I have completed my Greek classes, but for now I would trust the majority of English translations in this case.
I have just translated the article of a Catholic professor into excerpts. It shows how this misunderstanding about Junia came about. As far as I could see so far, it has not been published.
What are you afraid of? Before the truth? According to the Bible, this is to make people free.

PS: Here the German Article at the appendix:
 

Attachments

G

Gerlinde24

Guest
Searching out the truth is commendable. :)

You did not address my logic of why all the other English translations do not translate the original Greek as "they are distinguished apostles" and if it that was what the Greek said there would not have been volumes written through the centuries discussing it. I am not a Greek scholar and after 3 years of Greek I still will not equal the Greek scholars behind all of the English Translations you can check on Bible Hub. So why would you feel comfortable choosing this one translation over all those other English Translations? Is it because it says what you want it to say? Are you being intellectually honest in your pursuit of THIS answer as to what this verse says? I am going to have to trust those who know more than me on the Greek until I have completed my Greek classes, but for now I would trust the majority of English translations in this case.
There are three main reasons for this:

1. The original text is available in Vienna.
2. The translators have all kept as close to the original text as possible.
3. American translators have too often in the past taken into account the churches that paid for them. In Germany there is a popular saying: The bread I eat, the song I sing".