Z
zamyrabyrd
Guest
Exactly!
- Status
T
tee_eff_em
Guest
Indeed!
Forget *“Junia” *-- Mary Magdalene is frequently called the “apostle to the apostles”.
And for my money, even though Thomas gets saddled with the epithet “Doubting”, none of them come out smelling good. Did Peter and John believe Mary? *NoooOOOooooOOoo… *they ran to the tomb to see for themselves.
tee
T
TomFromMD
Guest
I haven’t read the book, but I’m kind of surprised that there would be an entire book about Junia, since all we know about her comes from one verse, Romans 16:17.
biblehub.com/romans/16-7.htm
The “highly respected” (Greek: ἐπίσημοι ) varies greatly from translation to translation (see link) - some say “outstanding among the apostles”, others “of note among the apostles”, or “noteworthy in the eyes of the apostles”.
Three points:
- Several of the translations can be read as “the apostles see them as being noteworthy” - that they were exemplary Christians - rather than necessarily that they were apostles in high regard. I don’t know Greek well enough to comment.
- Remember that Paul uses the word apostle loosely - he refers to himself as an apostle (despite not being one of the 12), and refers to Barnabus as an apostle. Apostle means one sent forth. We don’t know what kind of ecclesiastical role Junia would have played - perhaps none. It seems reasonable to me that Andronicus and Junia could be husband and wife, and were missionaries together.
- Several translations list the name as Junias, rather than Junia. The Greek is Ἰουνίαν. Iounian. There are several commentaries stating that this may be a short form of a longer, male name - Junilius or Junianus are listed. Beats me.
J
JRS_88
Guest
Nothing to add other than to say, there are people you will never convince
about this issue and at some point it’s time to step away and realize that not everyone
will believe the truth.
about this issue and at some point it’s time to step away and realize that not everyone
will believe the truth.
S
Starwarsfan2
Guest
The point of sola scriptura is that we CANNOT pick and choose
V
vexweb
Guest
it obviously does.
*]one protestant becomes a pre-mil, pre-trib rapturist, another becomes a preterist.
*]one becomes credo baptist, another becomes paedo-baptist.
*]one believes in eternal security, another believes one can apostatise.
*]one is a calvinist, another is arminian.
more examples can be given, but protestants have certainly torn the body of Christ apart through picking and choosing their doctrines, and subsequently ostracising others who disagree with them.
there is one lord, one baptism, one faith
P
PaulfromIowa
Guest
Deborah was an OT Jewish Prophet but not a Priest. There were certainly no Jewish priestesses.
There were deaconesses in the Early Church but they were not ordained or considered clergy. They were either wives of Deacons and/or teachers of women and children.
We do not know much about Junia, even whether he/she was male or female. Speculation about Junia as some type of clergy is just that, sheer speculation. There is no evidence. The word apostle has different meanings. Paul very certainly did not advocate for women clergy, so that could not have been the sense in which he used that word.
S
Starwarsfan2
Guest
What you mention is not intentional picking and choosing , but disagreements.
Keep the faith , Starwars
V
vexweb
Guest
What I’m pointing out is a necessary condition of disagreements - the necessary condition is a prior choosing of which theology one believes and disbelieves.
One can do as much research as one wants, one still makes a “choosing”.
S
Starwarsfan2
Guest
Oh sorry , thought you were saying we pick and choose what parts of scriptures to believe ( we don’t ) but I agree that one picks theology
P
PJM
Guest
Before getting into your two questions; permit me to offer you a warm welcome to CAF
We are delighted to have you join us.
I’d like to preface my comments by sharing that then Pope JP II [now Saint JP II] issued an infallible Declaration on this very topic:
"In May of 1994 John Paul II promulgated “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis” which can be GOOGLED and read in it’s entirety.
From a historical perspective:
Because there is but One True God [the 1st Commandment] we can know that the God of the OT and Christ in the NT are the same one God.
IN the entirety of the bible God choose only one man; leading up to John the Baptist in the NT; which in turn led to Christ choosing Peter. Mt. 16:15-19]
Noah, Abram. Moses, David, Jacob, the Judges, the Prophets all were male-gender. In fact the tradition was so stringent that when God set the covenant with Abraham based on circumcision; female gender were included through their fathers and or husbands. ALSO: God choose Aaron and his SON"S for OT Priesthood Exo. 28:1
Christ freely choose to demonstrate much higher regard for women than was common in that time and culture; yet He choose 12 men Mt. 10:1-4 as his Apostles. Who in turn choose other men as priest and Bishops.
There was a brief period where women-deacons were permitted; but they were never raised to the level of the Priesthood.It was thought to be “improper” for men to be teaching a class or group of women; so for a brief time other women were appointed to this task. It was a short-lived history.
Pope JP II gave as the foundation for his Infallible declaration on this topic the following reasons:
- Ordination is a Sacrament instituted by Jesus Christ and therefore only God Himself is empowered to alter it.
- Sacred Tradition as I pointed out above clearly and consistently followed this “model” of a male only priesthood. Exodus 28:1
- The NT priesthood was instituted during the Feast of Passover; when Jesus instituted the SACRAMENTS of Holy Orders and the Most Holy Eucharist; the gift of Himself in Catholic Holy Communion; with these words:
“And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you**. Do this for a commemoration of me”**.
& 1st. Cor. 11:23-24
“For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. [24] And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me”.
3.The words “in commemoration of ME” are literal: THUS BECAUSE Jesus is male-gender; in order to make that same Jesus present again through the hands of His Priest; the Catholic-priesthood too in an absolute sense MUST also be “mlae-gender”
At the instant of transubstantiation; the priest is miraculously transformed into “Alter-Christi” [another Christ]. So we have a miracle within the miracle of Miracles. A mystery within the MYSTERY.
I do hope this clarifies the issue for you
God Bless you, and welcome!
Patrick [PJM] here on CAF
E
ericc
Guest
If the book is referring to Junias of Romans 16:7. My question is how do we know "she " is a woman. Because my bible RSV CA says
“Greet Andronicus and Junias , my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners; they are men of note among the apostles…”
Did they mix female and male prisoners together?
I can’t read Greek so I do not know the grammatical rules for syngeneis whether it is in a masculine or feminine sense. Anyone?
S
Starwarsfan2
Guest
The oriental orthodox support Her Junia as a saint , the EO calls Junia a her as well
E
ericc
Guest
Actually I just want to know whether syntactically speaking did Paul refer to them as males or females. I am looking at the Greek on Biblehub:
Rom 16:7 Paul referred relatives as syngeneis and Biblehub indicate it as Adjective-Accusative Masculine Plural.
However, the female equivalent is seen in Luke 1:36 where Elizabeth is denoted as syngenis and Biblehub indicate that as Noun-Nominative Feminine Singular.
Since Greek can differentiate via its syntax whether male or female is being described, I thought that should make it easy to resolve. Some pro-female research just look at whether it is a female sounding, male sounding, frequency of use etc to come to their conclusion. That is at best a “popularity” vote. However, if the Greek language can determine femininity or masculinity by its usage, shouldn’t that be the first course of action?
In Rom 16:7 fellow prisoners “synaichmalotous” is also indicated as masculine. The apostles “apostolois” is also described as masculine. There should be female equivalents? If there are, what would those words be?
I know next to nothing about Greek other than copy/paste
Coptic Orthodox Church says they are of the seventy disciples and both are males.
st-takla.org/books/en/church/synaxarium/09-bashans/23-pashans-junia.html
Orthodox Church in America says the same too.
oca.org/saints/lives/2015/05/17/101406-st-junia
The seventy disciples are all males , correct?
Y
You
Guest
why do people assume that a name ending in ‘a’ is a female name, there are no rules about names.
4 unisex ancient Roman names;
AGRIPPA m & f Ancient Roman, Biblical
Roman cognomen of unknown meaning, possibly from Greek αγριος (agrios) “wild” and ‘ιππος (hippos) “horse” or possibly of Etruscan origin… [more]
AQUILA m & f Biblical, Ancient Roman
From a Roman cognomen which meant “eagle” in Latin… [more]
GLAUCIA m & f Ancient Roman
Latin form of GLÁUCIO
IOVITA m & f Ancient Roman
Latin masculine and feminine form of JOVITA
4 unisex ancient Roman names;
AGRIPPA m & f Ancient Roman, Biblical
Roman cognomen of unknown meaning, possibly from Greek αγριος (agrios) “wild” and ‘ιππος (hippos) “horse” or possibly of Etruscan origin… [more]
AQUILA m & f Biblical, Ancient Roman
From a Roman cognomen which meant “eagle” in Latin… [more]
GLAUCIA m & f Ancient Roman
Latin form of GLÁUCIO
IOVITA m & f Ancient Roman
Latin masculine and feminine form of JOVITA
V
vexweb
Guest
Patrick, thank you so much for your response.Before getting into your two questions; permit me to offer you a warm welcome to CAF
…
I do hope this clarifies the issue for you
God Bless you, and welcome!
Patrick [PJM] here on CAF
First off, let me just be clear that I am in complete agreement with the Catholic position on the matter (as an ex protestant, currently practising catholic in full communion with Rome). I am aware of the tradition and the declaration by St JPII.
My reason for raising this issue however is because I’m trying to formulate responses to Protestants who are increasingly accepting this as normative. I don’t think a stock standard Catholic response will suffice. Everything you said can be easily affirmed by a Catholic, but not necessarily by a progressive thinking Protestant.
Just as we don’t use the deuterocanonicals when in dialogue with Protestants, and just as we do not assume the Pope and the Church’s authority but rather reason with them from scripture and history, I am hoping that this thread will continue to flesh out reasons and arguments against this progressive Protestant position from the common ground we share with our separated brothers.
I am working through some of the material now and will post some specific reasons/arguments from the Protestant side when I have something more substantial to post.
God bless!
V
vexweb
Guest
that is easy to answer: do not impose assumptions and linguistic rules from your English language onto other languages. Unlike English, some modern languages and ancient languages do not have nouns that are gender-neutral. In French for instance, every noun and proper noun (names) is either masculine or feminine, depending on how the word ends.why do people assume that a name ending in ‘a’ is a female name, there are no rules about names.
Greek is also like this. Just from observing how a noun or proper noun ends (assuming you can read greek), it is extremely easy to establish whether it is masculine or feminine. for instance Petros and Petra in the passages concerning St Peter as the rock on which the church is built. Petra is feminine, and Petros is masculine, in the greek text itself.
Likewise, Junias and Junia are masculine or feminine depending on the word ending.
Y
You
Guest
wiki says this;
The problem of translating the name arises because, when the New Testament was composed, Greek was normally written without accents, although these already had been invented. If written with an acute accent on the penultimate syllable (Ἰουνίαν), the name is “Junia” (a woman’s name); if with a circumflex accent on the final syllable (Ἰουνιᾶν), it is “Junias” (a man’s). No conclusion can be drawn from the masculine gender of the associated words in the same verse, since they apply also to the male Andronicus. Accordingly, even if Junia(s) is a woman, the rules of Greek grammar put those words in the masculine form. The overwhelming choice of the male form (Ἰουνιᾶν), when in the 9th century accents were added in manuscripts, may have been influenced by the grammatical gender of these words, but it has also been attributed to a supposed bias on the part of scribes against the idea of a female apostle.
E
ericc
Guest
And yet there is no record of a female priesthood, at all. If there is, it would be earth-shaking because the Abrahamic faith doesn’t have it. It would certainly hit the news round. But where is the news? 2000 years of history and not a whiff?
Even for Protestants, not a suggestion of female clergy for 500 years until recently. Since it is trendy now, they have to stretch back 2000 years ago from a one liner to justify female clergy? Just so to be politically correct and support whatever agenda on the table?
Even for Protestants, not a suggestion of female clergy for 500 years until recently. Since it is trendy now, they have to stretch back 2000 years ago from a one liner to justify female clergy? Just so to be politically correct and support whatever agenda on the table?
G
Gorgias
Guest
When talking about an exclusively female group of people, the feminine would be used. When talking about a group of men or a group of men & women, the masculine would be used. So, “kinsmen” doesn’t imply “only men.” Moreover, the Greek here doesn’t say “men of note”, it says “my fellow prisoners who are of note.”
I think you’re making too many assumptions in the way you word this question.
- Status