Women in Mininstry: A Debate

ScottEmerson · Feb 16, 2003

Today at 02:51 AM cougan said this in Post #13

Yes Scott you quibbled about it and I at one point got tired of hearing about it and listed all my sources in another thread. I have told you I don't find it necessary to list my sources when I am posting on this open thread. I took about 3 hrs for me to compose my first post in here and yes some of it was cut and past from Wayne Jackson (a wonderful writter). If I have writtings on the very subject at hand I will cut and paste. I could put into my own words but I just wanted to save time and I completely agree with what they say. I just wrote a paper based off of our last debate to hand out to others. Guess what, at the end of my paper I listed all the sources I used and I belive that it should be done for something like that but not for on here.

I guess to me it would be one thing if you were using them to pool together your post. When it is cut-and-paste, I would rather see you document your sources, lest someone think that the writing on the post is yours and not someone else's. That, I would say, is intellectual dishonesty.

1peter 3:1 Wives are in subjection to their husbands. Women in the church are in subjection to the men. This is similar to christians being in subjection to the elders. We all serve under Christ the head.

Click to expand...

Do you not see a difference between a principle on wives to their husbands and women to men? DO you not see a relationship difference there? Let us not forget that the husband is to submit himself to his wife, as well - (something often forgotten on your side!)

First you must understand that her husband was there with her they both taught Apollos.

Click to expand...

Ironically, many times, when the two are mentioned, Priscilla is mentioned first, suggesting that she led the meetings, with her husband by her side.

They took him to the side privately they did not do it publically.

Click to expand...

ANd that is in the SCripture...where?

A women can teach a man and lead him to Christ but she should not put her self in a postion where she has authority over him like would be the case if a women preached a message from the word of God to a church that had both men and women in it.

Click to expand...

So what is the difference between a woman teach a man and a woman teaching two men? or 50? What is your Scriptural basis here?

We are not told how she aided Paul nor how she aided others. This does not mean that she served some sort of office as deconess nor does this imply that she was in charge of or set over Paul in some sort of authortative way but she was a wonderful women who was servant to the church and aided or broght relied not only to Paul but others that were around her. What a wonder character Phobe had.

Click to expand...

Read the previous posts or so for the use of the word prostasis. 

It shows the source in the article it says it from (Lightfoot, 96).

Click to expand...

Very well - any chance you could find that so we could read it, because I provided a different post, which said that Origen thought Junia was a woman. Plus, the one a few ago - (the website) says that Origen saw Junia as a woman. And finally - Brooten, B. 'JuniaOutstanding among the Apostles' in Women Priests: A Catholic Commentary on the Vatican Declaration ed. Swidler L. and Swidler A. (Paulist Press [1977], 144 n 4) shows that Origen uses Junia as a woman. 

It is very useful when you cant tell from the English word wheather its in the neuter, male, or female it also very helpful in getting a deeper understanding if something is being spoke of in the present, past or future. Anything beyond the tenses of the words can become very complicated and should not be used in most circumstances. Most things can be easily shown from the English so one should use the Greek in certain areas or situations.

Click to expand...

Especially dealing with nuances such as the one found in the second chapter of Timothy, it is very helpful, no? 

I await your response.

ScottEmerson · Feb 16, 2003

Today at 10:42 AM seangoh said this in Post #14

hmm......both of you have raised up good points...and i find cougan's facts hold more weight....however there are some points that i don't agree with.....same goes for Scott.....i'll be posting my views later in the debate...meanwhile i gotta catch up with my school work..

I hope that I have added more "weight" to my argument, and hope that you read them closely. For too long, women have been marginalized in the Church. I hope a discussion can help others understand their role and importance in the Church, so they can fulfill their calling.

ScottEmerson · Feb 16, 2003

Today at 02:06 PM seebs said this in Post #17

I think he understands rather well.

As you say, Paul is talking about spirit, not flesh.

But then, ministry and leadership are of the spirit, not of the flesh, so the gender of your physical body hardly matters; what matters is your spirit, and in spirit, there is neither male nor female.

You've done a good job of showing precisely why this passage indeed abolishes any distinction in the church between men's and women's roles.

Thanks, seebs.

Job_38 · Feb 16, 2003

Today at 03:47 PM seangoh said this in Post #15

Job_38, unfortunately there are many false doctrines going around in christendom...so with regards to such debates, it prolly gives each other a better perspective of the other party.....i call this reasoning with each other.(Isa 1:18) However, i'm aware some get into debates just to bring the other party down and have little motivation to bring ppl to Christ or develop good relationships....this would be the kind of ppl u're referring to.

 

 I am in full agreement with that. I am often called to apologetic situations where all Christians should defend the Truth.

 

 

cougan · Feb 17, 2003

Well Scott you have written a great deal of words, but have you really proven anything? I dont think that you have. I am not going to do the quote thing I just want to answer briefly all those many words that you used. If don't feel I answer one of your question or comments with the below response simply repeat it and I will get to it.

I want you to step back and take a look at what extreme you are having to go to in order to try and show that women can be deacons, elders, or preachers in the church when men are present. All of you arguements you have made are based off a small selction of scripture that you really have to work to try and make it into something it is not. You do not have an example to show us or any qualifications set forth in the word of God for a women to be a deacon, elder, or preacher in the church. But the word plainly and clearly says.

1 Timothy 2:12 And I do not permit a woman (a woman of any age, whether a virgin, or married, or a widow; Strongs) to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.

Again, this does not make a women any lesser than a man but God had a plan and way he wanted it to be done. The man was to be head and the women the helper. If a women rules over the flock that is the church or preaches or leads in anyway over the man than she would be putting herself in authority over the man. Now you have went to great of extrems on the word head or in Greek "kephale" means origin in 1Cort 11. What you have done is taken one posible meaning of this word and try to apply to this verse. You do this out of desperation to change the meaning of this word head trying to change the meaning of the verse here. But this is expressed throughout the bible that the man is the head of the women as I have shown examples before. I searched the different lexicons and the ones I looked at show this verse to be talking about the man being over the women and is not interpreted as being the origin.

Then you try and use the name Junia, which in the Greek is said to be (noun acc masc sing), and make Junia into a women. Did you happen to notice that kinsmen and fellowprisoners are both masc? Besides all of this even if Junia was a women, which I belive not to be correct it still would'nt make Junia an apostle. The idea here is that these 2 people were of note or known of by the apostles and this in no way is calling these 2 apostles. Another thing that is note worthy is that the word apostle doesnt always mean like the 12 apostle. Sometimes it is used to just refer to those that are sent out. If you go back to the begging of acts you will see that there was a qualifation for being an apostle which no one meet that qualifcation today.

You seem to have the same problem with word that can be rendered deacon, servant or mininster. Every Christian can be a diakonos in the general sense but in the offical sense the qualification for a deacon are laid out.

1tim 3:8 Likewise deacons must be reverent, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy for money,9 holding the mystery of the faith with a pure conscience.10 But let these also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons, being found blameless.11 Likewise their wives must be reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things.12 Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.13 For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a good standing and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.
I am here to say that Paul was not a offical deacon because he did not meet the above qualification. Yes he was a servant in the general sense but not in the offical sense. Now Peter was an elder but you will also not that he was married and because of the qualifications of an elder we know he had at least 1 child.

Then you made another weak arguement by trying to say that because someones name is listed before the others that somehow they are the main teacher. That is a strawmans arguement.

I still dont understand how you think you can prove how the lady in 2John was the head of the church. Which I would disagree with anyways because Christ is the head of the church. It no where states that she is an elder or in any authorative postion. You just want so badly to hold to you view that you are just reading things into verses that are simply not there. I have never heard anyone use such a weak argument before.

Scott I want to provide you with a wealth of detailed information. I am going to provide 3 links below that go into great detail in what I have been trying to show you all along and yes these are articles not written by me and I think I have provided the sources. I would recommend anyone wanting more detailed info on this topic to visit the links below. Of course I could supply more but this should be sufficent enough.

Women Role

http://www.ardmoreweb.com/christ/womenrole.htm

Was Phoebe a deaconess

http://www.ardmoreweb.com/christ/phoebe.html

What about Philips 4 daughters

http://www.ardmoreweb.com/christ/philips.html

dnich163 · Feb 17, 2003

I wonder how you define "teach" ?

There already are many women who teach in the church. In the RC Church we have a lot of female saints, women like Mother Teresa who to a certain extent stood up against what could be viewed as a restrictive element of one part of an institution of the Church and changed the lives of millions of people around the world.....This is what I would call teaching.

Women are part of God's creation, and a very special part as man is incomplete without them in some way.
This is clearly the meaning in early Genesis.

The big issue is where in the structure of the"church" do they fit?

Should they be priests?
Could a woman be Pope one day?

David

fragmentsofdreams · Feb 17, 2003

The issue of women priests in the Catholic Church boils down to one question: is maleness a necessary characteristic in a person representing Christ or is it unneccesary like being Jewish, circumcized, etc.?

dnich163 · Feb 17, 2003

Hi there Fragmenstofdreams,

I don't think that the characteristic of maleness is the only issue here.
There has to be the element of tradition in the church which Jesus himself adhered to be taken into consideration. Tradition is a big issue in the structure of the church.
There are a number of additional areas for consideration.

Whether we are being true to the apostolic tradition of the church for example.
If we don't admit women into the church does this lessen their importance in any way?
We also have to address the whole issue of "status" within the priesthood, they are here to serve just as Jesus was and instructed us to do.

Maybe I have gone off the mark here, but it seems to me that we need to incorporate all of these issues rather than isolating the gender question on it's own.
It is not really a question about worthiness or adequacy after all. If that were the case then nobody could be a priest.

David

fragmentsofdreams · Feb 17, 2003

Those questions are relevent, but I think that they fall under my question. Or rather, in what ways does the priest take on the persona of Christ?

Job_38 · Feb 17, 2003

You guys are all missing the points. It is not saying a woman is devoid of preaching the gospel, but in a church she is not to teach MEN.

ScottEmerson · Feb 17, 2003

Today at 03:21 AM cougan said this in Post #25

Well Scott you have written a great deal of words, but have you really proven anything? I dont think that you have. I am not going to do the quote thing I just want to answer briefly all those many words that you used. If don't feel I answer one of your question or comments with the below response simply repeat it and I will get to it.

Yes. I have proven a lot. Let us go and see what you have answered.

I want you to step back and take a look at what extreme you are having to go to in order to try and show that women can be deacons, elders, or preachers in the church when men are present. All of you arguements you have made are based off a small selction of scripture that you really have to work to try and make it into something it is not.

Click to expand...

If we look back, you can see that I have a wide variety of Scriptures. I have used Acts 2:17-18, I Corithians 11:5, Mark 7:24 30; 14:3-9; Luke 10:38 42; John 4:27-42; 11:17-27; 20:16-18; Romans 16:1-2; Acts 18:18; I Corithinans 11:3-12; I Corinthians 14:34; II Timothy 2; I Corinthians 11:2-16; II Timothy 4:17;  I Timothy 3:1-2 and the book of second John. How is this such a small deal?

You do not have an example to show us or any qualifications set forth in the word of God for a women to be a deacon, elder, or preacher in the church. But the word plainly and clearly says.

Click to expand...

I have shown women apostles and women deacons. They are an example in and of themselves.

1 Timothy 2:12 And I do not permit a woman (a woman of any age, whether a virgin, or married, or a widow; Strongs) to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.

Click to expand...

And read again what I wrote about that. Paul shifts his case, from plural to singular - from dealing with all of the women to dealing with "the" woman. What Strongs has to say is irrelevant. What you are not considering is the case of the word and its relevance. That is why your use of this Scripture is invalid. It ignores Paul's specific use of the singular and plural uses of the word for woman.

Again, this does not make a women any lesser than a man but God had a plan and way he wanted it to be done. The man was to be head and the women the helper. If a women rules over the flock that is the church or preaches or leads in anyway over the man than she would be putting herself in authority over the man. Now you have went to great of extrems on the word head or in Greek "kephale" means origin in 1Cort 11. What you have done is taken one posible meaning of this word and try to apply to this verse. You do this out of desperation to change the meaning of this word head trying to change the meaning of the verse here. But this is expressed throughout the bible that the man is the head of the women as I have shown examples before. I searched the different lexicons and the ones I looked at show this verse to be talking about the man being over the women and is not interpreted as being the origin.

Click to expand...

Which lexicons? I showed you Liddell and Scott, who do not once use authority for the word kephale, with 48 other definitions besides. According to the uses of the word kephale we have in literature of that time, we see tha the literature constantly uses the term for "source," since the ancients' believed that sperm, the source of life, was produced in th male brain, which is, of course, locared in the head. Aristotle came up with this idea and it was believed for many generations afterward. For a good article on this, read Richard S. Cervin, "Does Kephale Mean 'Source' or 'Authority' in Greek Literature? A Rebuttal," Trinity Journal 10 NS (1989), 85-112. The use of kephale for head can be found in all of these Greek authors - Xenophon, Plato, Thucydides, Sophocles, Aeschylus, Theocritus, Homer, Herodatus, Polibius, Plotinus, and Diodorus Siculus. If Paul had meant authority, why would he not use common words for such, such as exousia or archon? The proof is far too likely - think about it from a Greek perspective instead of an English one.

Then you try and use the name Junia, which in the Greek is said to be (noun acc masc sing)

Click to expand...

By who? Who gives it the idea of masculine? It is, as I have shown, an accusitive feminine singular.

and make Junia into a women.

Click to expand...

Note this carefully. We never have, in any Greek literature, earlier, during this time, and later, have evidence for a male with the name of Junias. We have many, many evidences of females with the name of Junia. What does this tell us? Is this not strong proof?

Also, from a site I posted yesterday: "It was not always this way. John Chrysostom was not alone in the ancient church in taking the name to be feminine. The earliest commentator on Romans 16:7, Origen of Alexandria (e. 185-253/54), took the name to be feminine (Junta or Julia, which is a textual variant),(4) as did Jerome (340/50-419/20),(5) Hatto of Vercelli (924-961),(6) Theophylact (c.1050-c.1108),(70 and Peter Abelard (1079-1142).(8) In fact, to the best of my knowledge, no commentator on the text until Aegidius of Rome (1245-1316) took the name to be masculine. Without commenting on his departure from previous commentators, Aegidius simply referred to the two persons mentioned in Romans 16:7 as these honorable men (viri).(9) Aegidius noted that there were two variant readings for the second name: Juniam and Juliam (accusative in the verse). He preferred the reading Juliam and took it to be masculine. Thus we see that even Juliam, which modern scholars would take to be clearly feminine, has been considered masculine in the context of the title apostle. "

Did you happen to notice that kinsmen and fellowprisoners are both masc?

Click to expand...

Doesn't matter. When using a term to describe men and women, the masculine kinsmen can (and should be used.) They did not have a word for "kinsperson" back in that time. Even if the entire group of people were women, the word would still be kinsmen. Your argument here is groundless.

Besides all of this even if Junia was a women, which I belive not to be correct it still would'nt make Junia an apostle. The idea here is that these 2 people were of note or known of by the apostles and this in no way is calling these 2 apostles.

Click to expand...

This would very well be true, except that the preposition used is not pros or para. If it were, we could read it as "They are said to be outstanding "by" the apostles." But a literal reading from the Greek is simply "They are outstanding among the apostles!"

Another thing that is note worthy is that the word apostle doesnt always mean like the 12 apostle. Sometimes it is used to just refer to those that are sent out. If you go back to the begging of acts you will see that there was a qualifation for being an apostle which no one meet that qualifcation today.

Click to expand...

And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues." 1 Corinthians 12:28, NIV

Let us explore what you see as the qualifications for being an apostle.

For the record, Thayers presents two meanings for apostle that is found in the text, either the specially applied meaning for the Twelve OR a name "transferred to eminent Christian teachers." Since she is obviously not one of the twelve, she MUST have been an eminent CHristian teacher - and more specifically, one of the best ones around.

You seem to have the same problem with word that can be rendered deacon, servant or mininster. Every Christian can be a diakonos in the general sense but in the offical sense the qualification for a deacon are laid out.

Click to expand...

So where does Paul use the word "deacon" for an unofficial stance? If you are going to claim this, than the burden of proof is to show that this is true. Where Paul intends service, he uses the common 'doulos,' NOT diakonos. 

1tim 3:8 Likewise deacons must be reverent, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy for money,9 holding the mystery of the faith with a pure conscience.10 But let these also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons, being found blameless.11 Likewise their wives must be reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things.12 Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.13 For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a good standing and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Click to expand...

I will note that in verse 11, the word "wives" can be translated as women. "Likewise (in the same manner) women must be reverant, not slanderers, temperate, and faithful in all things." This gives validity to women being deacons.

And from my previous post, that was unanswered:

I am going to assume that you are referring to Timothy 3:1-2. The important part to read are the first few words. "If anyone" desires. He does not specifically say "man" with the word aner, as he does all throughout his letter. Thus, we can conclude that Paul is referring to if any man or woman desires the office of a bishop, correct? I would also maintain that we understand that the next verse be understood to prevent bishops from having more than one wife. Consider all of the single and widowed ministers in the church. Should they be unallowed to minister, due to their being single? Common sense, and plain reading, show that women are not being excluded in this case. Same for the passage in Titus 1.

I am here to say that Paul was not a offical deacon because he did not meet the above qualification. Yes he was a servant in the general sense but not in the offical sense. Now Peter was an elder but you will also not that he was married and because of the qualifications of an elder we know he had at least 1 child.

Click to expand...

What about John? He was an elder, but we have no evidence from any of the traditions of John that he ever married. Again - should all the single and widowed ministers resign?

ScottEmerson · Feb 17, 2003

Then you made another weak arguement by trying to say that because someones name is listed before the others that somehow they are the main teacher. That is a strawmans arguement.

You do not know what a strawman's argument is. This is not one, as I was not attacking a weak point in your argument. This is from Chrysostom: "This too is worthy of inquiry, why, as he addressed them, Paul has placed Priscilla before her husband. For he did not say "Greek Aquila and Priscilla," but "Priscilla and Aquila." He does not do this without a reason, but he seems to me to acknowledge a greater godliness for her than for her husband. What i said is not guess-word, because it is possible to learn this from the book of Acts. [Priscilla] took Apollos, an eloquent man and powerful in the Scriptures, but knowing only the baptism of John: and she instructed him in the way of the Lord and made him a teacher brought to completion." (from his "First Homily to the GReeting of Priscilla and Aquila)

I still dont understand how you think you can prove how the lady in 2John was the head of the church.

1. Verse 2: "To the chosen lady and her children, whom I love in the truth--and not I only, but also all who know the truth-- because of the truth, which lives in us and will be with us forever:"

Establishes the letter was written to a woman. This woman has "children."

2. Verse 4: "It has given me great joy to find some of your children walking in the truth, just as the Father commanded us."

Establishes that some children of the church were walking in the truth.

3. Verse 5: And now, dear lady, I am not writing you a new command but one we have had from the beginning. I ask that we love one another.

Gives her a command.

4. Verse 10: "If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him.

Establishes that her church was held in her house.

How does the chapter NOT show that the woman was the leader of the church?

Which I would disagree with anyways because Christ is the head of the church.

I think you know what I mean.

It no where states that she is an elder or in any authorative postion.

It says that she had a church in her house. John told her instructions dealing with her "children." How is she not in an authoritative position? Take off the blinders, man!

You just want so badly to hold to you view that you are just reading things into verses that are simply not there. I have never heard anyone use such a weak argument before.

And I observe, from the four verses above, that it is quite clear and evident. You just want so badly to hold onto your view that you cannot read plain teachings. It is not a weak argument, as is made clear from your rebuttal of it - merely denial, denial, denial, and no substance.

Scott I want to provide you with a wealth of detailed information. I am going to provide 3 links below that go into great detail in what I have been trying to show you all along and yes these are articles not written by me and I think I have provided the sources. I would recommend anyone wanting more detailed info on this topic to visit the links below. Of course I could supply more but this should be sufficent enough.

Click to expand...

I will read them, but only address what I haven't addressed already.

What you have not shown: A recap...

1. Where did Priscilla teach Apollos?
2. You said a woman could teach one man but not a church. So what is the difference between a woman teaching a man and a woman teaching two men? or 50? What is your Scriptural basis here?
3. Did you ever find your Lightfoot source about Origin, since it contradicts three different sources I've shown where Origen always translated Junia as feminine, and I've shown an Origen quote saying that women can be in ministry.
4. Why does the equality in Christ apply only to salvation and not spiritual gifts?
5. You dropped the plural-singular shift in Timothy. Did you not understand it or could you just not refute it?
6. You never responded to my protasis argument, which is an awfully good point, I think.
7. You dropped the crucial Genesis "helper suitable" argument - more good points, I believe.

Click to expand...

seebs · Feb 18, 2003

Yesterday at 04:57 PM Job_38 said this in Post #30 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=659288#post659288)

You guys are all missing the points. It is not saying a woman is devoid of preaching the gospel, but in a church she is not to teach MEN.

All we know is that, in at least one specific circumstance, Paul didn't let women teach men. Note that he clearly said "I do not...", not "God does not...". Why?

Well, for one thing, specific cultural context. For another, this is Paul of "better to marry than to burn" fame. Perhaps he felt that sexual temptation would be a problem for people. That doesn't mean it always is.

undead1 · Feb 18, 2003

Today at 07:15 AM seebs said this in Post #33 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=660084#post660084)

All we know is that, in at least one specific circumstance, Paul didn't let women teach men. Note that he clearly said "I do not...", not "God does not...". Why?

Well, for one thing, specific cultural context

"Culture" is the favourite word of people without an argument.

The bible knows no culture, but the culture of the people of God, who have their own culture.

But the argument that the NT teaching on women is "cultural" is correct in so far as the NT identifies the culture of the people of God. The culture of EU, US and many other societies is not NT, but is of pagan origination, and those "Christians" maintaining that NT culture ought to be subservient to pagan culture, may as well admit that know nothing about Christianity.

OldShepherd · Feb 18, 2003

Today at 07:56 PM undead said this in Post #34 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=660246#post660246)

"Culture" is the favourite word of people without an argument.

The bible knows no culture, but the culture of the people of God, who have their own culture.

But the argument that the NT teaching on women is "cultural" is correct in so far as the NT identifies the culture of the people of God. The culture of EU, US and many other societies is not NT, but is of pagan origination, and those "Christians" maintaining that NT culture ought to be subservient to pagan culture, may as well admit that know nothing about Christianity.

Circular argument without any scripture to back it up. When you can post and discuss ALL the pertinent scriptures then you might have something worth reading. But anybody, David Koresh, Jim Jones, whoever can say I'm right and everyone else is pagan.

dnich163 · Feb 18, 2003

If we look at Jesus, we see that he gave the samaritan woman at the well what was in effect the first mission to spread the good news of Jesus to her village.
This was quite a gesture if we take into account the relationship between the Samaritans and the Jews, a bit like Sharon and Arafat doing something publicly together to renounce violence perhaps.

In this particular way Jesus gave the woman pride of place in his kingdom in a sense. She was the first female missionary, and this before the men went out on their mission. Remember also they went in pairs.

Do you think this view is irrelevant or not applicable to the issue of women in the Church?

David

undead1 · Feb 19, 2003

Yesterday at 06:17 PM dnich163 said this in Post #36 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=660721#post660721)

If we look at Jesus, we see that he gave the samaritan woman at the well what was in effect the first mission to spread the good news of Jesus to her village.

This was quite a gesture if we take into account the relationship between the Samaritans and the Jews, a bit like Sharon and Arafat doing something publicly together to renounce violence perhaps.

In this particular way Jesus gave the woman pride of place in his kingdom in a sense. She was the first female missionary, and this before the men went out on their mission. Remember also they went in pairs.

Do you think this view is irrelevant or not applicable to the issue of women in the Church?

David

Much has been written about women taking part in some events "before" men. Eg Mary Magdalene at the empty tomb. But none of these episodes involved women teaching, or being asked to teach, anything of their own volition or manufacture. All the women were expected to do was communicate specific events of which they were witness:

Jhn 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and [to] my God, and your God.

And with the Samaritan woman:

Jhn 4:29 Come, see a man, which told me all things that ever I did: is not this the Christ?

In this, Jesus shows that women are partakers of the gospel, and to them also is the gospel is to be preached. And women are able to be witnesses, and to testify to what they have seen and heard to unbelievers. But that is not to say they can usurp authority over a man, for as Peter says:

1Pe 3:1 Likewise, ye wives, [be] in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;

And the same spirit is given to women also (Gal 3:28), to be exercised in conformity with their sex, and so in 1 Cor 11;2, women are allowed as praying or prophecying by that spirit - but not in the ecclesia, because that would not be honoring to their sex, and in any event, the ecclesia teaching only commences at 1Cr 11:18:

For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.

But the teaching of doctrine, the authority over a congregation, anything that is seen as a man being commanded of, or beholden to, a woman, in respect of knowledge or doctrine, or anything else, is anathema to the NT.

(I have yet to meet a female prophet, and I take it for granted that the spirit of prophecy will not be given to any woman who does not wholeheartedly acknowledge all the NT doctrine on women)

ScottEmerson · Feb 19, 2003

But the teaching of doctrine, the authority over a congregation, anything that is seen as a man being commanded of, or beholden to, a woman, in respect of knowledge or doctrine, or anything else, is anathema to the NT.

I have shown how you are quite wrong in this regard. Care to tackle anything I wrote?

(I have yet to meet a female prophet, and I take it for granted that the spirit of prophecy will not be given to any woman who does not wholeheartedly acknowledge all the NT doctrine on women) [/B]

Which churches have you been to? There are many, many women prophets. Perhaps you just haven't been in the right circles.

cougan · Feb 21, 2003

Sorry about the delay in response and I only have time to make a short comment on Junia and this verse.

ASV Romans 16:7 Salute Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen, and my fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also have been in Christ before me.
652 avpo,stoloj apostolos {ap-os'-tol-os} from 649; TDNT - 1:407,67; n m AV - apostle 78, messenger 2, he that is sent 1; 81 1) a delegate, messenger, one sent forth with orders 1a) specifically applied to the twelve apostles of Christ 1b) in a broader sense applied to other eminent Christian teachers 1b1) of Barnabas 1b2) of Timothy and Silvanus

First of all this is all of Thayers definations which is more than just being refered to as the 12 or in a BROADER sense an eminent Christian teacher. It is also used as on sent or a mensenger. Even if Junias is a women I have already stated that a women can teach other women and children. But no where is it implyied that a women taught publical in the church where she would take usurp authority over the man.

Now I am still looking for the J.B Light foot Reference in his book of galations on page 96 but have not as of yet been able to lay my hands on the material. It would be interesting to see what source he quotes as origen refering to Junias as a women. I need a little more time for this part but as I have stated before it really doesnt matter if Junians is a man or women because this text is not, in my opinon, calling these two apostles. Lets remember that an apostle had to be eye witness of Jesus resurrection in order to be an apostle.

20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,

22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

First of all you will notice that they choose from among the MEN. 2nd they had to be a witness of Jesus resurection. Even though Paul was an apostle born out of due time 1Cor 15:8 he still was an eye witness of Jesus.

This verse and this arguement you are trying to use is not supported by the rest of the bible. As I dug in to this verse I found out that it is textual varience. I also found out that it is not clear from the Greek wheather Junias is a male or a female. Some Greek scholars say female other say male and some say you cannot tell from the text. The Friberg GNT Morphology says that Junias is masculine. Once again as a reseached it out some say that this Junias wether male or female could be saying that they are apostles in the general sense and others say that it means that Junias was known by the apostles which the majorty leaned to the last one here. What becomes quite obvious is is that this particualar verse due to unclear nature can not be used or proven on either side. There simply is not enough evidence with this verse alone to prove that Junias is either male or female nor is there enough evindence to say wheather he or she was know by the apostles or was an apostle. I belive that the rest of the bible speaks against the view you are trying to apply to this verse but agrees with what I have said about it. You can try and stand on this ambigeous verse if you want to but you can not prove from this verse that Junias was a women nor can you prove that Junais was an apostle. Of course most of you arguements are based on such ambigeous text. I will deal with more of your arguements latter when I have a chance. Here is one interesting article that goes pretty deep into the subject of this verse.

http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/rom16.htm

ScottEmerson · Feb 21, 2003

Today at 06:16 PM cougan said this in Post #39

Sorry about the delay in response and I only have time to make a short comment on Junia and this verse.

That is okay. Makes it easier to offer a rebuttal point by point.

ASV Romans 16:7 Salute Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen, and my fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also have been in Christ before me.
652 avpo,stoloj apostolos {ap-os'-tol-os} from 649; TDNT - 1:407,67; n m AV - apostle 78, messenger 2, he that is sent 1; 81 1) a delegate, messenger, one sent forth with orders 1a) specifically applied to the twelve apostles of Christ 1b) in a broader sense applied to other eminent Christian teachers 1b1) of Barnabas 1b2) of Timothy and Silvanus

First of all this is all of Thayers definations which is more than just being refered to as the 12 or in a BROADER sense an eminent Christian teacher. It is also used as on sent or a mensenger. Even if Junias is a women I have already stated that a women can teach other women and children. But no where is it implyied that a women taught publical in the church where she would take usurp authority over the man.

Click to expand...

This is true. It does not say specifically that she was over men. But you are assuming that "women" cannot teach publicly in church, and the grammar simply doesn't support that, as I have shown. The letter to Timothy has Paul talking about a specific woman who was usurping authority. It was her who was not allowed to speak.

Now I am still looking for the J.B Light foot Reference in his book of galations on page 96 but have not as of yet been able to lay my hands on the material. It would be interesting to see what source he quotes as origen refering to Junias as a women.

Click to expand...

Especially since I have shown 3 (or is it now 4) other sources that illustrate that Origen saw Junias as a woman. I am interested to know what this information would be found on his book to the Galatians, when Junias is mentioned in Romans. That doesn't make sense to me.

I need a little more time for this part but as I have stated before it really doesnt matter if Junians is a man or women because this text is not, in my opinon, calling these two apostles. Lets remember that an apostle had to be eye witness of Jesus resurrection in order to be an apostle.

Click to expand...

20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,

22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection. [/quote]

First of all, and foremost, this is specifically talking about taking the place of Judas - one of the Twelve. This is saying nothing about the apostles as Paul mentions. Paul says that apostleship is a spiritual gift.

First of all you will notice that they choose from among the MEN.2nd they had to be a witness of Jesus resurection. Even though Paul was an apostle born out of due time 1Cor 15:8 he still was an eye witness of Jesus.

Paul does say that he was an eyewitness of Jesus, but he never says that this is what qualifies him to be an apostle.

This verse and this arguement you are trying to use is not supported by the rest of the bible. As I dug in to this verse I found out that it is textual varience. I also found out that it is not clear from the Greek wheather Junias is a male or a female.

Click to expand...

The form of the word Junias could be male or female accusative. There is no textual variance, although there are differences in accent marks, which were not added until the 12th centure. It is clear from history that there have never been any records of a male named Junias. That should speak for itself. There are many instances of Junia.

Some Greek scholars say female other say male and some say you cannot tell from the text.

Click to expand...

You cannot tell from the text - this is true. But the historical evidence that exists suggests strongly that Junia was, indeed, a woman.

Once again as a reseached it out some say that this Junias wether male or female could be saying that they are apostles in the general sense and others say that it means that Junias was known by the apostles which the majorty leaned to the last one here.

Click to expand...

The word is "among" - not "by." That makes a critical difference. The preposition specifically states that Junia was among the apostles - and was outstanding.

What becomes quite obvious is is that this particualar verse due to unclear nature can not be used or proven on either side. There simply is not enough evidence with this verse alone to prove that Junias is either male or female nor is there enough evindence to say wheather he or she was know by the apostles or was an apostle.

Click to expand...

But there IS enough historical evidence to show that Junuia was indeed a woman, and there IS enough textual evidence that Junia was among the apostles. Put the two together, and it adds up!

I belive that the rest of the bible speaks against the view you are trying to apply to this verse but agrees with what I have said about it. You can try and stand on this ambigeous verse if you want to but you can not prove from this verse that Junias was a women nor can you prove that Junais was an apostle. Of course most of you arguements are based on such ambigeous text.

Click to expand...

The BIble agrees with me. IT is tradition and many modern Christians who do not. The passages that I use were never ambiguous during the time of the NT nor during the early Church.

Click to expand...

Women in Mininstry: A Debate

I Like Traffic Lights

I Like Traffic Lights

I Like Traffic Lights

<font size="1"> In perfect orbit they have circled

Senior Member

dnich163

Critical loyalist

dnich163

Critical loyalist

<font size="1"> In perfect orbit they have circled

I Like Traffic Lights

I Like Traffic Lights

God Made Me A Skeptic

Active Member

Zaqunraah

dnich163

Active Member

I Like Traffic Lights

Senior Member

I Like Traffic Lights

Similar threads