Junia-a female NT apostle

[ClubV12]

Read my post again Tom, carefully. She is stating EXACTLY what I have stated, it is DIFFICULT, not IMPOSSIBLE, for her to reach a different conclusion for her OPINION. I note her opinion and take it as such.

As to apostleship, she offers no conclusive evidence at all. As is the case for any and every scholar who has studied this verse for the last two thousand years. They don't know for sure WHAT Paul means.

From the article:

"...especially her (or his) gender since original Greek manuscripts did not distinguish between the similar masculine and feminine forms of the name."

And so her search for evidence begins, to resolve this mystery. Just as it has been for two thousand years.

From the article:

"The conflicting interpretations continue to this day."

"...together with Andronicus (probably her husband),", rampant speculation noted.

[Tom Wetmore]

No, she is not saying exactly what you are saying. What you are saying is contrary to what she concluded based on all the evidence she considered. It is not impossible to conclude that the sun circles the earth every day. After all, people believed it did for thousands of years. But considering the evidence as we now know it is difficult to believe and although not impossible, it is just absurd to not accept what the experts have concluded. And if everyone has concluded that it is difficult to believe the sun circles the earth, you cannot say that it does and claim to have said exactly what they did. That would be silly, now wouldn't it?

It is not even difficult to understand the totality[u/] of what Nancy V. says as not how you are determined to believe. When someone says that it is difficult to reach an outcome different from what they have concluded, they are saying it is not even a close call.

Based on your illogical reading and apparent lack of comprehension of what she is saying, I am wondering how you accept anything from Scripture or even the existence of God. Many things in Scripture are less clear on far less evidence that you must accept to believe many things the Church teaches. I am just wondering if you remain unconvinced simply because it is written by a woman.

[ClubV12]

What part of "she offers her opinions" on this verse do you not understand Tom?

I'm saying some scholars disagree with her. I'm saying the evidence is not conclusive. I'm saying I am not convinced by her opinion.

The BIAS is on YOU Tom. You are SO biased it is impossible for you to even consider the possibility that Junias was a man. I don't have that problem, it could go either way. You've painted yourself into a corner and there is no escape because of your extreme bias.

Tom says,

"...if you remain unconvinced simply because it is written by a woman."

Who says I base my opinion on the authors gender? Your bias is showing again. I don't care about the gender of the author.

[olger]

Ah, evidence that biblical scholarship doesn't meet with your preconcieved ideas....and you don't like him because he comes to conclusions that are different and opposing yours..

So, I can't help you if you will not allow your bias to be set aside....

Heh heh. I consider Richard a friend. I can disagree with folks and still love them. It's always best not to leap to hyperbole, Neil.

thank you,

G

[CoAspen]

Quote:

Heh heh. I consider Richard a friend. I can disagree with folks and still love them. It's always best not to leap to hyperbole, Neil.

thank you,

G

_________________________

"Please don't feed the drama queens.."

[Green Cochoa]

When was Junia in prison with Paul? If he/she wasn't, I think that answers this entire question well enough.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[ClubV12]

Opens a can of worms with how women were imprisoned at the time. CoEd? Shared cells, stocks, chains? Strange that one...

[Johann]

Read this through from the beginning. The overwhelming evidence is clearly that the Apostle Junia was a woman. The idea of her being a male came not until much later.

[ClubV12]

Actually, we don't know for sure WHEN the idea of him being a woman came around. All we know is that a 1,000 plus years later we find the first reference to gender and the "debate" is formally launched. For the first 1,000 years it wasn't an issue because everyone knew he was a man!

I don't buy this idea that overwhelming evidence means much. The overwhelming evidence is that Sunday is the correct day of worship. The overwhelming evidence for me is that to make Junias a women is inconsistent with Pauls overall position. In that regard, the conclusions of the many, how ever learned, remain suspect.

[Johann]

Not true, because Johannes Chrysostomos of Constantinople (347- 407) lists Junia in his Bible Commentary as a woman.

[ClubV12]

The first CREDIBLE account appears to be around 1200. Even at that, what we have here is some guy making a best guess some 3 to 400 years after the fact.

[Green Cochoa]

Not true, because Johannes Chrysostomos of Constantinople (347- 407) lists Junia in his Bible Commentary as a woman.

...

As for me, I wouldn't be going to Rome for support. The Bible needs no Roman Catholic explanation to cause me to understand it, much less from a "golden mouthed" Catholic "saint" and friend of the pope who preached against the Jews in such a manner as to be labeled by many today as an anti-Semitic.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[Johann]

You are right, we need no support outside the Bible, where the text is clear that Junia is a women.

[Kevin H]

Actually, we don't know for sure WHEN the idea of him being a woman came around. All we know is that a 1,000 plus years later we find the first reference to gender and the "debate" is formally launched. For the first 1,000 years it wasn't an issue because everyone knew he was a man!

I don't buy this idea that overwhelming evidence means much. The overwhelming evidence is that Sunday is the correct day of worship. The overwhelming evidence for me is that to make Junias a women is inconsistent with Pauls overall position. In that regard, the conclusions of the many, how ever learned, remain suspect.

Actually we do ClubV12. I don't remember exactly when it was in the 1300s or the 13th century. Arguments for the controversy were created by some Catholic priests who were upset that there was a woman apostle. Dr. Jim Fleming points out the history of the debate. Prior to this the church had no doubt that she was female.

[Green Cochoa]

You are right, we need no support outside the Bible, where the text is clear that Junia is a women.

If the text were so clear that Junia/Junias was a woman, why are you going to Rome to support your so-called fact? So far from establishing your "fact," you have called it into question.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[Kevin H]

Originally Posted By: Johann

You are right, we need no support outside the Bible, where the text is clear that Junia is a women.

If the text were so clear that Junia/Junias was a woman, why are you going to Rome to support your so-called fact? So far from establishing your "fact," you have called it into question.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Actually you got it backwards Green, it is those who are looking for Junia to be male that are going to Rome to get their so-called facts. Some of the priests in the Catholic church were upset that the Bible had a female apostle so decided to make her a male so that it fit Roman Catholic tradition. Good argument you are raising, but you need to realize which group this argument applies to.

[Green Cochoa]

Kevin,

I was speaking of "Johannes Chrysostomos of Constantinople (347- 407)" to whom Johann had appealed for support of Junia being a woman. You are speaking of a much later period in time, I gather. So, if the church bent the truth one way, then another, what does this prove to any of us?

In any case, I will allow that Junia may have been a woman. However, there is no evidence that Paul referred to her as an apostle, unless she was also imprisoned with him--and I have yet to see anyone here offer evidence of such.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[Johann]

I referred to Johannes C because he lived at an age when the Roman Catholic Church had not yet corrupted their ideas of womanhood as much as they did as time passed through the centuries.

It seems also encouraging that Johannes C had a much clearer understanding of the plain words of the Bible, at least in comparison with the ideas emerging from Alexandria.

Kevin beat me to responding to you. He knows areas in the history of the Adventist Church better than many.

[Green Cochoa]

What I notice is that many base their views on a he-said, she-said, or tradition as opposed to a plain reading of Scripture.

Here's the plain reading:

16:3 Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus:

16:4 Who have for my life laid down their own necks: unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles.

16:5 Likewise [greet] the church that is in their house. Salute my wellbeloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia unto Christ.

16:6 Greet Mary, who bestowed much labour on us.

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.

16:8 Greet Amplias my beloved in the Lord.

16:9 Salute Urbane, our helper in Christ, and Stachys my beloved.

16:10 Salute Apelles approved in Christ. Salute them which are of Aristobulus' [household].

16:11 Salute Herodion my kinsman. Greet them that be of the [household] of Narcissus, which are in the Lord.

16:12 Salute Tryphena and Tryphosa, who labour in the Lord. Salute the beloved Persis, which laboured much in the Lord.

16:13 Salute Rufus chosen in the Lord, and his mother and mine.

16:14 Salute Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermas, Patrobas, Hermes, and the brethren which are with them.

16:15 Salute Philologus, and Julia, Nereus, and his sister, and Olympas, and all the saints which are with them.

16:16 Salute one another with an holy kiss. The churches of Christ salute you.

Let's look at that rather large list now in list format. Paul sends his salutations and greetings to...

• Priscilla and Aquila
• the church that is in their house
• wellbeloved Epaenetus
• Mary
• Andronicus and Junia
• kinsmen
• fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles
• Amplias
• Urbane
• Stachys
• Apelles
• them which are of Aristobulus' [household]
• Herodion
• them that be of the [household] of Narcissus
• Tryphena and Tryphosa
• beloved Persis
• Rufus...and his mother and mine.
• Asyncritus
• Phlegon
• Hermas
• Patrobas
• Hermes
• the brethren which are with them
• Philologus
• Julia
• Nereus, and his sister
• Olympas
• all the saints

The relationships of all of these entities in the list cannot be fully ascertained. Paul is greeting so many people, and often mentions multiple individuals or groups in the same sentence. There is no clear association between "Junia" and "apostles," for these words are separated by both "fellow-prisoners" and "kinsmen." It cannot be known, from this verse, whether Paul were addressing Junia as an apostle. So even if we knew that Junia was a lady, we don't know that she was an apostle. It appears more logical that these are separate entities in Paul's list.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[olger]

Indeed.

[Kevin H]

Kevin,

I was speaking of "Johannes Chrysostomos of Constantinople (347- 407)" to whom Johann had appealed for support of Junia being a woman. You are speaking of a much later period in time, I gather. So, if the church bent the truth one way, then another, what does this prove to any of us?

In any case, I will allow that Junia may have been a woman. However, there is no evidence that Paul referred to her as an apostle, unless she was also imprisoned with him--and I have yet to see anyone here offer evidence of such.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

The issue there is that Johannes lived about one thousand years before the Catholics decided to try to change the Bible on this topic. So since he was living before that event, of course he'd voice what was known about the Bible in that time.

[Green Cochoa]

Ahem. Johannes was a Catholic. You need to read up on this a bit.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[ClubV12]

Kevin, no one needed to change the bible, the greek word never did contain any reference to gender. It doesn't matter which version you use or when it was written or even if you use the original manuscript, scroll or whatever.

Nothing will change the fact that gender cannot be determined from the text. Then, 300 years later, 1200 years later or today!

I really don't understand why people are making this SO complicated. I don't know what the gender is, why are those who support W.O. SO paranoid, demanding and insistent that THEY know? It makes you people look like fools, you know... Your welcome to your OPINION, just like the experts are.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

Johannes was a Catholic. You need to read up on this a bit.

The term "Catholic" covers a large area.

Yes, to read up on his life is very interesting and there is much about it on the Internet.

At times he, like Luther, called Rome to repentance and change.

No, he never like Luther made a break with Catholicism.

At the same time, he was often on the outs with Rome.

Question: Was he largely Roman Catholic, Orthodox or Eastern Catholic?

Possibly no definitive answer.

[Johann]

Where are you doing your reading, Green?

All of the Apostles were Catholics - they have all been granted sainthood by the Catholic church, even more so than Johannes Chrysostom.

When did the church split into the Eastern and Western churches? Johannes Chrysostom came from the are which did not accept the superiority of the bishop of Rome.

Rome has made claims on Johannes Chrysostom, but so has the Eastern church - and other churches. It depends on where you do your reading.

If you are a devout Roman Catholic you will claim him to be a Roman Catholic, if that is your pleasure, just like they claim that St. Peter was the first pope.