Junia-a female NT apostle

[Johann]

Is Junia a male or a female name? Does it make any difference?

Would you call your son Esther? Why not?

[Johann]

Paul adds that Andronikus and Junia were in Christ before him. So they were early disciples.

[ClubV12]

Andronikus and Junia, were they brothers or cousins or neighbors, I wonder...

[Johann]

Andronikus and Junia, were they brothers or cousins or neighbors, I wonder...

Don't forget that Junia is a female name, so she could hardly be a brother.

[ClubV12]

Don't forget that gender in this case is merely an opinion because the text contains no definitive proof either way.

Brother stands.

[Green Cochoa]

Don't forget that Junia is a female name, so she could hardly be a brother.

Was it now? And I suppose Elijah, Elisha, Judah, Ezra, Micah, Isaiah, Zephaniah, and Joshua are all female names too on account of their feminine appearance; just like Delilah, Dina, Leah, Sarah, Deborah, Huldah, Aholibah, Aholah, and Athaliah.

Why did those men have "female names?"

And why did "Dorcas" have a "male name," just like Marcus, Judas, Silas, Barnabas, and Barabbas?

Are you looking merely at the feminine appearance in English? If the Greek doesn't indicate which gender Junia/Junias/Junianus is, I hardly think you can know.

Thayer's Lexicon says the KJV rendering of "Junia" (a woman's name) is possible, but otherwise speaks of him as a kinsman (as opposed to a kinswoman) of Paul.

[img:left]http://www.blbclassic.org/lang/lexicon/i...18E10259361CD63

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[Tom Wetmore]

https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/2013/07/junia-the-apostle

The article as published in Minstry Magazine.

Worth another read...

[Johann]

Quote:

In his Liber de Nominibus Hebraicis, Jerome (ca. 345–419) lists the name as Junia.11

Is Jerome a valid authority?

[Johann]

Quote:

According to Epp’s table, 38 Greek New Testaments, beginning with Erasmus (1516) through Eberhard Nestle in 1920, use the name Iounían, indicating feminine gender for Junia

Includes the Textus Receptus, so important to some forum members.

[Gregory Matthews]

Green said:

 

Quote:

Was it now? And I suppose Elijah, Elisha, Judah, Ezra, Micah, Isaiah, Zephaniah, and Joshua are all female names too on account of their feminine appearance; just like Delilah, Dina, Leah, Sarah, Deborah, Huldah, Aholibah, Aholah, and Athaliah.

 

Green, all of your quotes are Hebrew names transliterated into English.

 

 

Junia is a Greek name transliterated into English.

 

As a translator, you ought to know better than that.

 

NOTE: Transliteration and translation are two very different words. Do not confuse them as they have very different meanings.

Edited May 21, 2015 by Gregory Matthews

[Tom Wetmore]

Conclusion of the author...

Quote:

It is difficult to complete this study without finding that Paul is referring to a woman named Junia, who, together with Andronicus (probably her hus­band), was part of the NT group of apostles. Paul recognized her as one of the apostles, a woman who was willing to suffer for the gospel she was busily spreading.

[Tom Wetmore]

http://www.memorymeaningfaith.org/blog/2013/04/junia-the-apostle.html

 

 

For some who insist that Junia is translated as a male....not so, according to Nancy Vyhmeister from Andrews University

In answer to Photodude, here is  current and reliable scholarship about the female apostle named Junia....

[Green Cochoa]

Well, at least the church vote at the General Conference shortly after this hyped topic shows how little impact the smoke and mirrors of proclaiming this supposed woman an apostle had upon the minds of God's people.

Unfortunately, the hype has made a dent, a significant dent, in the minds of many of our members.  The rift is still widening, but quietly for the moment.  A new rift is opening on the homosexuality issue, as many careful Bible students foresaw and predicted as being the next step after women's ordination had been pushed through.  Though the issue should have been considered decided at the Session, some independent Unions have boldly proclaimed their own stance and, in an attitude akin to smoldering defiance, have ordained women against the policy of the world body.

Jesus prayed for His followers to be in unity.  How can anyone honestly look at this blatant disunity within the church today and declare it "necessary", or good, or "progressive"?

Blessings,
Green Cochoa.

 

Edited March 6, 2016 by Tom Wetmore
Slight wording change edit made at the request of Green...

[Gregory Matthews]

Green: Have you read and understood the decision at the General Conference?

That decision did not even consider whether or not women should be ordained.  Rather it was about which organizational level could decide for their area.  [NOTE:  For the purrpose of my comment here, I am not dealing with the question as to whether or not the Divisions are an organizational level.]

In my opinion, the GC decision left at least two major issues open for continued discussion (outside of the basic issues of female ordination):

1)  What the Bible has to say about ordaining women:  The theological study groups that were conduced did not resolve this issue.  The majority opinions was the  Bible neither mandated not forbid ordaining      women.

2)  It certainly did not consider what EGW has written on the matter.  I consider of great importance what she wrote in regard to local decision being made by local people and not the General Conference.  She had quite a lot to say which led to the establishment of the Unions.

I could list more.

Unity:  Unity is, in the thinking of many, a unity of purpose and goal rather than a unity of how one does it.

[Green Cochoa]

On February 20, 2016 at 5:50 PM, Gregory Matthews said:

Green: Have you read and understood the decision at the General Conference?

That decision did not even consider whether or not women should be ordained.  Rather it was about which organizational level could decide for their area.  [NOTE:  For the purrpose of my comment here, I am not dealing with the question as to whether or not the Divisions are an organizational level.]

In my opinion, the GC decision left at least two major issues open for continued discussion (outside of the basic issues of female ordination):

1)  What the Bible has to say about ordaining women:  The theological study groups that were conduced did not resolve this issue.  The majority opinions was the  Bible neither mandated not forbid ordaining      women.

2)  It certainly did not consider what EGW has written on the matter.  I consider of great importance what she wrote in regard to local decision being made by local people and not the General Conference.  She had quite a lot to say which led to the establishment of the Unions.

I could list more.

Unity:  Unity is, in the thinking of many, a unity of purpose and goal rather than a unity of how one does it.

Gregory,

Mrs. White's statements regarding the "General Conference" do not necessarily encompass her views on the "General Conference in Session."  Those are two separate bodies, and while she did seek to limit the authority of the first, she established the authority of the latter as our Church's highest authority on earth, saying its voice was to represent the will of God to us.

Are you aware of the reasons WHY the decision did not address ordination directly?  The feminist ordinators did not dare to ask such a direct question lest they get a very decisive "No." answer from the world body.  They have, instead, agitated for ordination by degrees, trying to simply get their proverbial foot in the door.  I firmly believe that the General Conference Session should have been given a direct question on which to vote to help settle the matter clearly and decisively.  However, this has unfortunately not been done.  Nevertheless, the General Conference Session has thrice voted against even the first steps toward ordaining women, including those votes that would have established Divisional independence to decide on the issue for their own territories.  Instead of meekly and honorably abiding by these decisions, and the principle/intent of them, the women's ordinators have gone ahead against church practice and policy and ordained women, claiming a legal "loophole" that it is up to the unions, not the divisions.  

They'll have their reward.

Blessings,
Green Cochoa.

[Gregory Matthews]

 

 

Green said:

the General Conference Session has thrice voted against even the first steps toward ordaining women, . . .

On the other hand, a first step has been taken in a vote that allows females to be ordained as a local Elder and we have done that for years.;

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Green said:

. . . claiming a legal "loophole" that it is up to the unions, not the divisions.   . . .

That issues can not reasonably be dismissed as a "legal loophole." 

1) The Unions are governed by a document known as a Constitution and its bylaws.

2) Union Constitutions have been approved by both the voting body of that Union AND the General Conference.

3) The actual working of Union Constitutions may differ between the various unions.

4) Some Unions have an absolute Constitutional right to decide who should be ordained.

5) Other Unions have a clause in their Constitutions that effectively limits Constitutional revisions to the will of the General Conference.

6) The argument is that those Unions in # 4 can not have their Constitutional right abridged by a vote of the General Conference.  Green, this is much more than simply a legal loophole.  This issue is much more fundamental as to governance than simply calling it a legal loophole.

NOTE:  I am aware that you can cite a legal ruling from GC lawyers who seem to challenge what I have said above.  That ruling applies to Unions that fall under # 5, above. 

 

[Green Cochoa]

1 hour ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Green said:

On the other hand, a first step has been taken in a vote that allows females to be ordained as a local Elder and we have done that for years.;

I think you know more about this than you here choose to let on, because the facts do not support your case.  When it is convenient for you, you support the General Conference.  When it is inconvenient, you bash its authority with statements from Ellen White.  But just here is where the problem lies: Ellen White limited the authority of the General Conference administrators and committees, but, contrariwise, established a "General Conference Session" with delegates from every world field as the voice of God to the church.

Guess which of these two bodies established female local elders?  Yes, the one that was NOT in authority to do so.  This needs to be a GC Session decision, something that has not taken place.  It was a mistake, it is unbiblical, and the church would do well to retract it and make amends.

Blessings,
Green Cochoa.

[Tom Wetmore]

But what you apparently ignore or miss is that the General Conference Constitution voted by the GC in Session expressly provided that the GC Executive Committee shall have authority between sessions on par with the  delegates in Session. That same body which voted the ordination of female elders and voted to allow for female ministers of any sort decades ago and which no Session has overturned.  What you also fail to understand is that those in favor of WO have in fact asked for WO.  Those requests  have simply not gotten through the gantlet of committees at the GC and the indirect tentative actions were all that have made it.  The agenda for Session is very tightly controlled.

[Tom Wetmore]

This topic has started to drift off topic...

[Tom Wetmore]

Although not a new issue, here is the article that started this topic - http://www.memorymeaningfaith.org/blog/2013/04/junia-the-apostle.html 

It is quite amazing how much resistance there is to recognizing a woman of any importance...

[Rossw]

https://carm.org/junia-apostle

[Rossw]

1 hour ago, Tom Wetmore said:

It is quite amazing how much resistance there is to recognizing a woman of any importance...

Strawman. It's a quite amazing the continued false representation of the anti-WO.

There is no debate here women have a part in the 3 angels message but isn't that a separate issue from church leadership? EGW is not being taken down from her position of God's messenger here.

Would you still pursue WO if the Bible were explicitly against it?