The Early Church is the Catholic Church

[Thursday]

The book however is permanent and not subject to revision.
.

The problem with this view is that it doesn't work.

We have hundreds of protestant denominations all teaching from the same book by advocating radically different doctrines.

For example, Jehovah's Witnesses reject the divinity of Christ.
Baptists say that baptism is unnecessary for salvation.
Calvinists say that a man's works on earth are totally irrelevant to his salvation.
Episcopalians say infant baptism is valid.
Some pentecostals say speaking in tonges is a necessary sign of salvation.

Etc.

Using the bible alone doesn't lead to unity or truth, but rather disunity and contradictory doctrines.

 

[Anguspure]

Gibberish.

Yes it (the UN teaching) is gibberish but both Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul the II publically supported it.

What appears to be a serpent intertwining a pole intersected by the perpendicular side of a triangle (cf. the central cross intertwined with a serpent) in front of a half-darkened sun representing the Zoroastrian concept of the conflict between good and evil (cf. a brilliant light), and a large, seemingly casket-shaped, black natural magnet (cf. a skull and crossbones, a casket, and a dagger), perhaps intended to act as an hallucinogenic catalyst like a drug -- comprises the occult Meditation Room at the United Nations, where 'followers of all religions, who visit by the hundreds of thousands each year, may [currently] awaken the 'god within.'" (The AntiChrist and a Cup of Tea, Tim Cohen, pg 159)

"Prayer, meditation and spirituality at the UN are fascinating subjects. All major world religions are accredited to the United Nations as non-governmental organizations. For example, no less than twenty-four Catholic organizations are represented at the UN. Several of the world's religious leaders have visited the international organization. Most memorable were the visits of His Holiness Pope Paul VI during the General Assembly in 1965 and of Pope John Paul II in 1979. Many religions have special invocations, prayers, hymns and services for the United Nations. The most important examples are those of the Catholic, the Unitarian-Universalist, the Baptist and the Bahai faiths. It is a common practice of the Unitarian-Universalists to display the United Nations flag in their houses of worship. So does the Holy Family Church, the parish church of the UN, with its international reliquary and its many religious services and activities catering to world peace and to the international community.

Sri Chinmoy, New Age guru, meditation leader at the UN: "the United Nations is the chosen instrument of God; to be a chosen instrument means to be a divine messenger carrying the banner of God's inner vision and outer manifestation."
http://www.execpc.com/~jfish/na/070896n3.txt

Donald Keys, New Age leader, President of Planetary Citizens, author "Earth At Omega": "We have meditations at the United Nations a couple of times a week. The meditation leader is Sri Chinmoy, and this is what he said...'The United Nations is the chosen instrument of God...a divine messenger carrying the banner of God's inner vision and outer manifestation. One day the world will treasure...the soul of the United Nations as its very own with enormous pride, for this soul is all-loving, all-nourishing, and all-fulfilling.'"
http://www.cuttingedge.org/ce1049.html

"The UN meditation room, and the minute of silent prayer or meditation at the beginning of each UN General Assembly, place 'the greatest gathering of nations . . . under the symbol of silent prayer or meditation,' in the words of U Thant. The UN is where 'moral and ethical issues are being brought one after the other to the world organization.' The UN is creating codes of ethics and conduct, one of the greatest being the Charter itself. The UN 'extends the power of our hearts and souls.' The UN thus has become 'a cathedral where we can worship what is best in each other.' 'Little by little a planetary prayer book is being composed (at the UN) by an increasingly united humanity seeking its oneness.'"
http://www.globaleduc.org/dolan.htm

William Jasper, author of "A New World Religion" describes the religion of the UN: "...a weird and diabolical convergence of New Age mysticism, pantheism, aboriginal animism atheism, communism, socialism, Luciferian occultism, apostate Christianity, Islam, Taoism, Buddhism, and Hinduism".
http://www.cuttingedge.org/ce1049.html

Jasper further describes the types of worshippers: "...a strange admixture of crystal worshippers, astrologers, feminists, environmentalists, cabalists, human potentialists Eastern mystics, pop psychologists, and 'liberal' clergymen one would normally associate with the offbeat, sandals-and-beads counterculture of the 1960's. But, today's worshippers in this rapidly expanding movement are as likely to be scientists, diplomats, corporate presidents, heads of state, international bankers, and leaders of mainstream Christian churches."
http://www.cuttingedge.org/ce1049.html

"This house [the UN Building], dedicated to work and debate and the service of peace, should have one room dedicated to silence in the outer sense and stillness in the inner sense. A place where the door may be opened to the infinite land of thought and prayer. There is no symbol or altar (in this room)[apparently the UN does not look upon the center stone as a type of altar, but merely a piece of art?] not because there is no God, but because it is dedicated to the God whom man worships under many names and forms. There is an ancient saying that the sense of a vessel is not in its shell but in the void. So it is with this room, it is for those who come here to fill the void with what they find in the center of stillness." [From a United Nations Meditation Room leaflet]
http://www.dnai.com/~arcanaws/study/wm-07.htm

 

[Thursday]

Yes it (the UN teaching) is gibberish but both Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul the II publically supported it.

What appears to be a serpent intertwining a pole intersected by the perpendicular side of a triangle (cf. the central cross intertwined with a serpent) in front of a half-darkened sun representing the Zoroastrian concept of the conflict between good and evil (cf. a brilliant light), and a large, seemingly casket-shaped, black natural magnet (cf. a skull and crossbones, a casket, and a dagger), perhaps intended to act as an hallucinogenic catalyst like a drug -- comprises the occult Meditation Room at the United Nations, where 'followers of all religions, who visit by the hundreds of thousands each year, may [currently] awaken the 'god within.'" (The AntiChrist and a Cup of Tea, Tim Cohen, pg 159)

"Prayer, meditation and spirituality at the UN are fascinating subjects. All major world religions are accredited to the United Nations as non-governmental organizations. For example, no less than twenty-four Catholic organizations are represented at the UN. Several of the world's religious leaders have visited the international organization. Most memorable were the visits of His Holiness Pope Paul VI during the General Assembly in 1965 and of Pope John Paul II in 1979. Many religions have special invocations, prayers, hymns and services for the United Nations. The most important examples are those of the Catholic, the Unitarian-Universalist, the Baptist and the Bahai faiths. It is a common practice of the Unitarian-Universalists to display the United Nations flag in their houses of worship. So does the Holy Family Church, the parish church of the UN, with its international reliquary and its many religious services and activities catering to world peace and to the international community.

Sri Chinmoy, New Age guru, meditation leader at the UN: "the United Nations is the chosen instrument of God; to be a chosen instrument means to be a divine messenger carrying the banner of God's inner vision and outer manifestation."
http://www.execpc.com/~jfish/na/070896n3.txt

Donald Keys, New Age leader, President of Planetary Citizens, author "Earth At Omega": "We have meditations at the United Nations a couple of times a week. The meditation leader is Sri Chinmoy, and this is what he said...'The United Nations is the chosen instrument of God...a divine messenger carrying the banner of God's inner vision and outer manifestation. One day the world will treasure...the soul of the United Nations as its very own with enormous pride, for this soul is all-loving, all-nourishing, and all-fulfilling.'"
http://www.cuttingedge.org/ce1049.html

"The UN meditation room, and the minute of silent prayer or meditation at the beginning of each UN General Assembly, place 'the greatest gathering of nations . . . under the symbol of silent prayer or meditation,' in the words of U Thant. The UN is where 'moral and ethical issues are being brought one after the other to the world organization.' The UN is creating codes of ethics and conduct, one of the greatest being the Charter itself. The UN 'extends the power of our hearts and souls.' The UN thus has become 'a cathedral where we can worship what is best in each other.' 'Little by little a planetary prayer book is being composed (at the UN) by an increasingly united humanity seeking its oneness.'"
http://www.globaleduc.org/dolan.htm

William Jasper, author of "A New World Religion" describes the religion of the UN: "...a weird and diabolical convergence of New Age mysticism, pantheism, aboriginal animism atheism, communism, socialism, Luciferian occultism, apostate Christianity, Islam, Taoism, Buddhism, and Hinduism".
http://www.cuttingedge.org/ce1049.html

Jasper further describes the types of worshippers: "...a strange admixture of crystal worshippers, astrologers, feminists, environmentalists, cabalists, human potentialists Eastern mystics, pop psychologists, and 'liberal' clergymen one would normally associate with the offbeat, sandals-and-beads counterculture of the 1960's. But, today's worshippers in this rapidly expanding movement are as likely to be scientists, diplomats, corporate presidents, heads of state, international bankers, and leaders of mainstream Christian churches."
http://www.cuttingedge.org/ce1049.html

"This house [the UN Building], dedicated to work and debate and the service of peace, should have one room dedicated to silence in the outer sense and stillness in the inner sense. A place where the door may be opened to the infinite land of thought and prayer. There is no symbol or altar (in this room)[apparently the UN does not look upon the center stone as a type of altar, but merely a piece of art?] not because there is no God, but because it is dedicated to the God whom man worships under many names and forms. There is an ancient saying that the sense of a vessel is not in its shell but in the void. So it is with this room, it is for those who come here to fill the void with what they find in the center of stillness." [From a United Nations Meditation Room leaflet]
http://www.dnai.com/~arcanaws/study/wm-07.htm

Silly meaningless gibberish.

This stuff is National Enquirer garbage that has nothing to do with Catholic beliefs.

 

[samir]

Yes, because even if water baptism is not necessary for salvation, it is certainly necessary as a first outward sign of obedience and indentification with Our Lord.
Water baptism is specifically ordained by Christ Jesus himself and supplies actions to the declaration we make with our mouth that Jesus is Our Lord.

If your bishop says baptism is necessary for salvation and you still believe it's not necessary for salvation but merely an outward sign then you would not be submitting to your bishop's authority.

I agree but this does not leave a sub-class of pew warmers.

Although scripture says the laity must submit to the hierarchy that doesn't mean they are an inferior sub-class. They are still part of the universal priesthood and when it comes to one's eternal destiny one's place in the hierarchy won't matter.

In fact I have had just this sort of issue with a Pastor in a town near me (on a different theological point), but nevertheless wish to submit to Him in Love and humility and make Him welcome in my home.
On this issue I would humbly submit the letter of James to this Bishop. Works are necessary for faith, but they are the evidence of faith not things that create faith.
If the Bishop is the leader appointed by God in my town, to leave Him, perhaps causing others to leave as well, would create a division of the body (assuming no such division had already occured).
While I believe that the Bishop has fallen off the path on this issue I would not wish to scatter the flock.
In the event of continued disagreement on this issue I would just have to continue in my faith that produces works, and after all the Bishop wouldn't know the difference. He would just think I was trying very hard to be a good boy, thus gaining my salvation, when in fact what I am doing is simply evidence of the Spirit within me.

That sounds like another no, you would not submit to your bishop. Although you wouldn't schism from your congregation, you would not submit to the bishop as scripture teaches but would try to correct the bishop and keep on believing what you already believe.

Works are necessary for faith, but they are the evidence of faith not things that create faith.

If you read the writings of early Christians, you'll see the early church defined faith as an intellectual assent to divinely revealed truth which means a person assents with his mind to the truth that God has revealed.*

Whether that God-given faith saves or is dead depends on what a person does with it. If a person, after assenting to God's revelation that he is a sinner, fears God's justice, considers the mercy of God, and begins to hope that God will be benevolent to him because of Christ's sacrifice on the cross, leading him to begin to love Him and become moved by a hatred and detestation of his sins, and resolving to live a new life in accordance with the will of God then his faith will save him.

*The early church had two definitions of faith, just like scripture. The second less commonly used definition refers to those who respond to the faith God gave them as described above. It wasn't used as much to avoid confusion because those who assent to what God revealed but refuse to act on it because they love their sin more than God will not be saved, yet they still have faith (intellectual assent). When scripture says "he who believes will be saved" I believe it's referring to faith that is acted on and works through love and not people who believe/assent to the truth but don't respond to that faith with love for God. It's unfortunate so many misinterpret these verses as saying as long as they truly, truly believe in their heart that Jesus died for their sins they will go to heaven even if there is no love for God or their neighbor in their hearts.

The works necessary are the fruits of loving God (since loving God is a fruit of faith it can also be said works result from faith - faith working through love). Scripture says whoever loves God will obey what he commanded. It's not the amount of good works or the ability to perform them that counts but whether a person loves God. That's why Catholics believe sin (doing what God prohibited or refusing to do what God commanded) only results in a believer's spiritual death when he, after sinning, no longer has a supernatural love for God which would only be the case if he sinned with deliberate consent and full knowledge that he was gravely violating God's law. No one, according to Catholic teaching, who dies with supernatural faith and love will go to hell because he sinned too much or didn't do enough good works.

The book however is permanent and not subject to revision. Culture and language issues are taken care of by good education.

A person can get that education from the church. The reality is most people learn of Jesus through the church, not the bible. They may be given a bible and read it first but they will go to other people and ask what it means. It makes more sense to me that Jesus founded a church with one teaching instead of having everyone rely on a variety of other people to interpret the bible for them.

Look at the Torah, 9 letter level differences in over 2000 years. We can know with absolute confidence that the books given to Moses are identical to those that we have today.
The New Testament also has an exemplary paper trail from which we can know that with a few very minor uncertainties we hold the writings of the Apostles that were available to the 1st century church.
We cannot say the same of the oral tradition, especially when this was often passed on under the guidance of some pretty direputable people.

There are several books (Hebrews, Revelation, James, Jude, 3John) where it's not clear they are scripture. The bigger problem is the correct interpretation of scripture. I can read catholic writings from almost 2,000 years ago and see that what was taught then is the same as what the catholic church and orthodox church teaches today.

If there was some concrete evidence for this I might be pursuaded but as it is, I am not. It is well known that scribes had difficulty enough maintaining faithful copies of the books of the Bible, but in this case we have a trail of copies by which we can make an assesment of their discrepencies.
In the case of the oral tradition we do not, and if we do it is because the record is in writing.

There is concrete evidence. Something as minor as the date when Easter should be celebrated (see Quartodecimean controversy) caused protests and there is written documentation to confirm it. Read the ECFs and you'll see there are dozens of heretical teaching that were condemned by the church so the Christian faith could be preserved unblemished.

A bit of equivocation here. Yes they were a part of the Christian church that is catholic. But when the Roman church became exclusive it became catholic in name only.

If the read the ECFs (from primary sources, don't rely on books that tell you what they said because they may be biased) you'll see the early Christians believed what the Catholic and Orthodox churches teach today.

No I do not beleive this, but since the letters and gospels have in turn been accepted as reliable because of their standing in this respect, they have been regarded as scripture. I dare say at one point or another the same could be said for any part of the scripture that was recorded after another.

The New Testament books were accepted, not because they could be confirmed as scripture using the OT, but because of the oral tradition of the apostles and the church councils of their successors. None of those successors who told us which books to accept believed what Protestants believe today.

Perhaps, but this is not the guidance given to Timothy.

The verse can also be translated husband of but one wife, meaning the person wasn't committing adultery by being in a second marriage while his wife was still alive.

And the question is asked: How can he manage the church if he can't manage his own family? and; If he doesn't have a family how can it possibly be known whether he will be any good at managing a family?

The first case would be solid evidence the person wasn't qualified to lead the church while the second case wouldn't say anything either way so it wouldn't be a reason to exclude him.

Besides it is my observation over 25 years at sea that single men tend to become increasingly neurotic and tyranical over the years and this is not a desirable trait for a person who represents Christ Jesus.
It is a trait that is often observed in religous leaders that do not have a Loving and strong family behind them.

I'm curious, does your congregation require its leaders to be married? Are single people banned from being in the leadership of your congregation? I hope you're not claiming it's wrong for the Catholic Church to have single men as bishops but okay for your congregation to appoint single men in leadership roles.

And yet it is certainly a plague of the RC denomination and my source is a priest by the name of Malachi Martin

Check the actuarial evidence (insurance claims) and I think you'll see the problem occurs just as much in Protestant churches. You don't hear about it as much because the media will have a story on every priest but often ignore it when it happens in Protestant congregations.

OSAS?

Once saved, always saved.

I caught a Christian stealing and quoted the verse "thieves will not inherit the kingdom of God." He responded by saying his salvation was guaranteed and can't be lost no matter what sins he commits.

Pope Innocent III (Roman numerals) I amazed at the denial however.

I didn't deny anything. I just asked for a source. The pope's name is great but what is the name of the document where he made that statement?

At the very least millions of people do not suddenly become slaughtered for nothing.

Unless you have a reliable source to support "millions of people" being slaughtered how do I know it is anything more than a myth started by people who hate Christians?

So why then do you accept similiar stories about the Protestants?

I don't. If a Catholic claimed Protestants slaughtered millions of people, I'd ask for a source and verify it before believing it.

It proves that we do not have to be in perfect agreement to be in unity. What is required is humility, gentleness and Love.

I agree people who don't share the Christian faith can be united on other matters.

Obeying His commands, the law of the Spirit, is evidence of salvation.

I agree. Those who love God (which is necessary for salvation - belief is not enough) will obey his commands. It is evidence they love God and therefore evidence of salvation.

John 14:21 (NKJV) - "He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him.”

It is not necessary for salvation to have followed His commands

A person who refuses to follow what God commanded does not love God and therefore won't be saved. Therefore, it is necessary for salvation.

but a person who is saved and has His Spirit (and those that do not have His Spirit do not belong to Him) will follow His commands because they are living by the Spirit, NOT by the Law which is powerless to remove sin.

Even if it were always the case that everyone who has faith will obey and be saved it still wouldn't mean obeying was not necessary for salvation.

Scripture gives examples of believers disobeying and it and warns them they won't be saved if they don't repent. A sinner who repents and starts living for God can later repent of his decision to follow Christ and go back to being a sinner. Such a person won't be saved.

So you say.

Not just me. Historians say that.

 

[samir]

Peter more prominent than John? Why do you keep condemning your favourite Apostle to the bottom of the heap in the kingdom? Anyway I've never read it so I will let you know what I think when I do.

I'm not condemning anyone. A person can be prominent and a leader while being humble and not lording it over anyone. Even the Orthodox, who reject the papacy, acknowledge a primacy given to Peter. He is usually mentioned first in scripture and was clearly shown to be a leader. Acknowledging reality like Obama saying he is the President and leader of the country would not mean he wasn't humble.

Is there a copy available?

It depends. There is a copy that claims to be Paul's epistle but there's no way of knowing whether it is authentic or a forgery. It's very short, only 19 verses, and agrees with the rest of Paul's writings. You can read it in two minutes so I'm curious what you think of it. The Apocalypse of Peter is longer and interesting but probably not written by Peter which is partly what I was getting at with Revelation - how do you know whether the Apostle John wrote it? I think that's why some early Christians accepted 1John but rejected 3John.

The gospel of Thomas along with the other 12 rejected gospels that are available are a really good example with which we can compare sober, historically, geographically and culturally accurate portrayals of 1st century Jewish life into which Jesus of Nazareth was born, with fantastic legends and story telling that bears now knowledge of the these things.

For example in all of the rejected gospels only 2 towns are mentioned: Bethlehem and Jerusalem, and they have zero knowledge of the geographical relationship between these 2 places, thus betraying the fact that these authors had never been near the land of Israel far less walked for miles and miles in the footsteps of the Rabbi.

Whereas the 4 accepted Gospels and the book of Acts take in a comprehensive geographical picture and show a real experiential knowledge of of the areas in which they take place.

I like the extra "gospels" because if some tells me that the writings that we have are simply legends I can invite them to read some real legends so as to compare with the 5 accepted accounts that we have.

Using that reasoning, wouldn't you have to reject 3 John?

 

[StanJ]

The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, who testifies to everything he saw—that is, the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ.
The servant John was an Apostle of Christ and also wrote the gospel of John and the letters 1,2 and 3 John.
That this book was written by this Apostle and that it contains the direct teaching of Our Lord (the letters to the 7 churches are the only directly dictated writing of Christ Jesus given in the Bible) should be sufficent reason alone.
I guess it could be said, at least, that the Apostle John accepted his own writings and that this gives the writing Apostolic authority in its own right.

Actually if you study up on that you'll find that John didn't write the Gospel of John, Lazarus did.

 

[StanJ]

Ah yes, the living have no need for this procedure.

But at the risk of going way off topic, I think you are referring to the ones destined for judgement, and perhaps I am wrong. The timing of things in the heavans relative to solar time is often difficult to judge.

I suspect there is a bit of "Time Lord" style behaviour taking place i.e. Even though the next thing a person who dies knows is ressurection to life or judgement and this would appear to happen instantaneously, from another perspective (of time) it might also be true that these things do not happen until the end of the age or the return of Our Lord.

Most of what the Bible tells us is not necessarily in strict chronological order without any gaps. Hebrews 9:27 states one basic reality juxtaposed against v28.

 

[Jutta2]

I do not agree with the fact that the early Church, which was founded by the Apostles is (especially of Paul and Peter), the Catholic Church. And I want to try to explain to three points.

Point 1: In the early Church of Christ were women deaconesses, priestesses, and female apostles. Junia is a good example for it. This applied to the 2nd century, then, women could no longer perform these offices. In the Catholic Church Women must not be priestesses. No bishop, no cardinal, and no pope (if I even disregard the possibility of authenticity of Pope Joan).

Point 2: The early Church of Christ was a simple church. With simple rituals and practices. All looked at each other as brothers and sisters. There was no pomp, no smell of incense, no female garments for male priests, and no reverence for clergy.

Point 3: In the early Church of Christ baptized were submerged. Hence the word "baptismo" comes. It means to bury someone in water, so that it can be resurrected as a new man again. The Jews do with its mikvah something similar. And, in the early Church no babies were baptized. Conclusion: The RCC has with the early Church of Jesus Christ so much in common, as Mormons with Christianity. Namely nothing!

 

[prodromos]

I do not agree with the fact that the early Church, which was founded by the Apostles is (especially of Paul and Peter), the Catholic Church. And I want to try to explain to three points.

Point 1: In the early Church of Christ were women deaconesses, priestesses, and female apostles. Junia is a good example for it. This applied to the 2nd century, then, women could no longer perform these offices. In the Catholic Church Women must not be priestesses. No bishop, no cardinal, and no pope (if I even disregard the possibility of authenticity of Pope Joan).

I don't remember Junia being listed among the 12. What is your evidence for women priests in the first centuries? Deaconesses existed early on to assist with baptising women for the sake of modesty from what I can recall,

Point 2: The early Church of Christ was a simple church. With simple rituals and practices. All looked at each other as brothers and sisters. There was no pomp, no smell of incense, no female garments for male priests, and no reverence for clergy.

Obviously you are not familiar with the Liturgy of St James. Much of the worship in the early Church flowed straight out of Jewish Temple worship, which included incense, candles and bells. Nor are cassocks women's clothing.

Point 3: In the early Church of Christ baptized were submerged. Hence the word "baptismo" comes. It means to bury someone in water, so that it can be resurrected as a new man again. The Jews do with its mikvah something similar. And, in the early Church no babies were baptized.

Whole households were baptised. On what basis do you exclude infants from those households?

Conclusion: The RCC has with the early Church of Jesus Christ so much in common, as Mormons with Christianity. Namely nothing!

Unfortunately you can't draw that conclusion from your above points.

 

[Arsenios]

Most of what the Bible tells us it's not necessarily in strict chronological order without any gaps. Hebrews 9:27 states one basic reality juxtaposed against v28.

Stan, how the heck ARE you?
Haven't 'seen' you in awhile!

Arsenios

 

[StanJ]

Stan, how the heck ARE you?
Haven't 'seen' you in awhile!
Arsenios

I guess I'm doing okay, how are you? Sorry I don't remember what forum we were last on together but I don't think it was here was it? I have not been here in a few years.

 

[Jutta2]

I don't remember Junia being listed among the 12. What is your evidence for women priests in the first centuries?

In older versions of the Bible Junia is named as man. In moderenen Bible translations as a woman, as in several reference books on the Bible (for example, in the theological dictionary of the New Testament, by Kittel published). Read this:

http://juniaproject.com/who-was-junia/

I quote:

The Junia Project is named for Junia, a woman apostle in the early church (see Romans 16:7). Her ministry in partnership with Andronicus and Paul reminds us that God’s intention is for men and women to partner together as equals in the home, the church, and the community.(...)
Though widely accepted as a woman apostle throughout early Church history, in later translations an “s” was added to the end of her name, making it into a masculine form, Junias. What was the reasoning behind this – was it a scribe’s mistake? Or could it have been something more political, like an attempt to deny that women could be apostles? We don’t know. What we do know is that any masculine form of the name Junia was essentially non-existent during those times, while the feminine was, and is to this day, quite common (just Google it and see the evidence!) More recently, scholars have overwhelmingly acknowledged that the name is definitively feminine. The NIV translation finally corrected the name in the 2011 revision, along with thousands of other gender-related corrections. In naming our ministry The Junia Project, we hope to restore Junia’s identity and honor her service in advancing the gospel in the early Church.

Source: link

Chrysostom (one of the church fathers of the RCC) wrote: "O how great is the devotion of this woman that she should be counted worthy of the appellation of apostle!" (Chrysostom, Homily on Romans 16, in Philip Schaff, ed, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, vol. II. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1956, p. 555.)
Aegidus of Rome (1245–1316) changed Junia in Junias, and changed also her apostleship.

About Women Priests in the early Church:

Have a closer look at this article: http://www.christianitytoday.com/hi...glected-history-of-women-in-early-church.html

I quote from it:

2nd-Century Church Women
Just as the letters of Paul abound in references to his female associates in ministry, the Apostolic Fathers also mention women as stalwarts in the faith. Twice Ignatius sent greetings to Alce, whom he calls especially dear to him. He also greeted Tavia and her household; perhaps she was another house-church leader.

Polycarp mentioned the sister of Crescens, who deserved special commendation when she and her brother arrived in Philippi to deliver the letter. The Shepherd of Hermas, written about 148 A.D., gives instructions that two copies should be made of the work and one given to Grapte, “who shall exhort the widows and orphans.” The other copy was to be given to Bishop Clement to share with the elders. It appears that Grapte and Clement represented the female and male leaders respectively.

But Christians were not the only ones prompted to write about the female followers of Jesus. About 112 A.D., the Roman governor Pliny the Younger detailed his efforts to cope with the nascent church in Bithynia. He had found it necessary to interrogate the leaders, two slave women called ministrae, or deacons. These women apparently followed in the tradition of Phoebe.

So, you can see, that there were female apostles and priests in the early church!

 

[walkingwiththeLORD]

The early Church was called Catholic, but NOT ROMAN CATHOLIC!

 

[prodromos]

In older versions of the Bible Junia is named as man. In moderenen Bible translations as a woman, as in several reference books on the Bible (for example, in the theological dictionary of the New Testament, by Kittel published). Read this:

http://juniaproject.com/who-was-junia/

I quote:

Source: link

Chrysostom (one of the church fathers of the RCC) wrote: "O how great is the devotion of this woman that she should be counted worthy of the appellation of apostle!" (Chrysostom, Homily on Romans 16, in Philip Schaff, ed, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, vol. II. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1956, p. 555.)
Aegidus of Rome (1245–1316) changed Junia in Junias, and changed also her apostleship.

About Women Priests in the early Church:

Have a closer look at this article: http://www.christianitytoday.com/hi...glected-history-of-women-in-early-church.html

I quote from it:



So, you can see, that there were female apostles and priests in the early church!

None of what you have posted is evidence of priestesses. In all the historical records we have of the early Church, it is only certain heresies such as gnosticism which have a female priesthood.

 

[Arsenios]

So, you can see, that there were female apostles and priests in the early church!

There were some women with Apostolic Gifts...
The Priesthood was not one of them...
Photini, Equal to the Apostles, the Woman at the Well, is one of them...

Arsenios

 

[Jutta2]

The early Church was called Catholic, but NOT ROMAN CATHOLIC!

Nope! The word "catholic" comes in the 2. Century, but the early church were founded in the FIRST CENTURY!

 

[Jutta2]

None of what you have posted is evidence of priestesses. In all the historical records we have of the early Church, it is only certain heresies such as gnosticism which have a female priesthood.

There are more than enough archeological and theological evidence that in the first two centuries women were priestesses in the early Church. There was, for example, German television a documentary about the "lost women of Jesus". As some examples were theologically called (Phoebe, Priscilla, Junia, Mary Magdalene, to name just a few. With Youtube You can view the documentation to see (unfortunately only in German). Also, in a documentary series about "200 years of Christianity (Episode 2 , towards the end of the episode, where the fragment about Junia is shown).

Jesus and the lost women:

200 Years of Christianity:

It started with 36:45, and finished three minutes later. There you can see the prrof of Junia.

 

[Jutta2]

There were some women with Apostolic Gifts...
The Priesthood was not one of them...
Photini, Equal to the Apostles, the Woman at the Well, is one of them...

Arsenios

You know only the current versions of the Bible. Have you, like me, busy studied with ancient writings? Have you, like me, research on women in the Bible? Have you, like me, understood as the development of the equality of women, up to the subjection happened in the early Church? I got it! I have read about it more than you have probably ever read in your life?
Only a gill, which a Catholic theologian, Norbert Greinacher, said in an of the German magazine "Spiegel" article. That was in 1992. I translate his statement:

"Given the example of Jesus and the early Church, is the obstinacy of the Catholic Church with regard to a comprehensive equality for women, a scandal" (quotation, Spiegel, 52/1992, page 85)

 

[Thursday]

Nope! The word "catholic" comes in the 2. Century, but the early church were founded in the FIRST CENTURY!

It doesn't matter what they called it, it was the same Church.

The word was just a description of the Church.

Can you provide any evidence that the descriptive word indicated the forming of a new Church?

 

[Arsenios]

You know only the CURRENT VERSIONS of the Bible.

OK - I guess you think the Byzantine Greek Bible is a CURRENT VERSION??

Should I update my dictionary accordingly??

Have you, like me, busy studied with ancient writings?

BUSY STUDY is not the Orthodox Way...
We prefer prayer and hesychia...
How about you?

Have you, like me, research on women in the Bible?

My personal favorite, after, of course, the Blessed Virgin, is Mary the Magdalene...
Can you imagine having all those demons in you directing your life?
She did the payback to Pilate through Caesar...

Have you, like me, understood as the development of the equality of women,

Equality??? In your dreams!
Orthodox men prostrate themselves...
Before their elevated and perfumed toes!

up to the subjection happened in the early Church?

Subjection???
Tell that to the Holy Mothers of this Faith...
Or to the mothers of the Saints...
Christ promised persecutions and tribulations...

I got it!

I will pray for you...

I have read about it more than you have probably ever read in your life?

I still study my alphabet soup...

Only a gill, which a Catholic theologian, Norbert Greinacher, said in an of the German magazine "Spiegel" article. That was in 1992. I translate his statement:

"Given the example of Jesus and the early Church, is the obstinacy of the Catholic Church with regard to a comprehensive equality for women, a scandal" (quotation, Spiegel, 52/1992, page 85)

I will pray for your GILL too...

ps - What is a gill??

So is it your mission to claim victim status for Christian Women?
Have you visited your local Mosque of late??
How did THAT work out for you???

Arsenios

Another ps - I LIKE YOU...
Times Three...
Your repetitions...

Kinda Petrine, don't you think?