Pastor Scott Markle

Lets quote the verse itself and see what it says about Junia......
Rom 16:7
(7)  Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.
 
I don't know, but it seems to me that it says KINSMEN.........
You can talk about naming conventions, but your decision to make it female is an ASSUMPTION that is not borne out by the verse itself.
This is a ridiculous argument.
You conveniently neglect to quote other verses:
Act 18:2
(2)  And found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome:) and came unto them.
Act 18:26
(26)  And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.
1Co 16:19
(19)  The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house.
 
By placing Aquila's name ahead of his wife's in these passages, Paul (OK Luke in two of these) appears to esteem him ahead of Priscilla as a co-worker.
Finally, 
I don't know, how about:
1Ti 3:2
(2)  A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
 
And don't even try to say that this should be "Partner of one Partner".
The Word Husband in this passage is inherently masculine, whilst the word wife is inherently feminine. Even in the Greek if you choose to go there.
And to argue that it was acceptable culturally to do this, is to say that God doesn't know enough to write His Word they way He needs to, and that He is bound by cultural ideologies. Not the God that my Bible describes, although apparently your god is restricted by culture.
 
I am just a dumb bloke who chooses to understand what the Bible says in the way that it says it.
I hope I never become intelligent enough to figure out that the Bible doesn't mean what it says. Like you.
 

I think that you have not provided enough information for us to understand the primary point or contextual purpose of your question. 
Do I think that such confusion sometimes occurs?  Yes.  Do I think that such confusion necessarily occurs?  No.  Do I think that some might accuse others of such confusion, but actually be wrong in their accusation?  Yes.  Do I think that my "politics" should be completely separated somehow from my Biblical Christianity?  NO, GOD FORBID!!!!  In fact, I would forcefully contend that my "politics" and my discernment of "politics" should EVER AND ALWAYS be submitted to my Biblical Christianity.
In truth, BIBLICAL Christianity IS my culture (since, as a child of God, I am NOT of this world, even as my Savior is not of this world); and the culture of this present, evil world around me is by foundational nature in OPPOSITION to my BIBLICAL Christianity. 

As for myself, I must contend that our Lord Jesus Christ started the New Testament church, NOT John the Baptist.

As for myself, I must contend that our Lord Jesus Christ started the New Testament church, NOT John the Baptist.

As for myself, I must contend that our Lord Jesus Christ started the New Testament church, NOT John the Baptist.

As for myself, I must contend that our Lord Jesus Christ started the New Testament church, NOT John the Baptist.

Some "dress to impress;" others "dress to respect."  The outward appearance may be similar for both, but the heart attitude is definitely different.

Some "dress to impress;" others "dress to respect."  The outward appearance may be similar for both, but the heart attitude is definitely different.

Some "dress to impress;" others "dress to respect."  The outward appearance may be similar for both, but the heart attitude is definitely different.

Some "dress to impress;" others "dress to respect."  The outward appearance may be similar for both, but the heart attitude is definitely different.

Some "dress to impress;" others "dress to respect."  The outward appearance may be similar for both, but the heart attitude is definitely different.

Some "dress to impress;" others "dress to respect."  The outward appearance may be similar for both, but the heart attitude is definitely different.

Wearing a suit when I preach reminds me of the need for humility and surrender in my role as a pastor. I recognize that the pulpit is not a platform for personal acclaim or self-promotion but an opportunity to humbly serve God. For me it is more of an act of surrendering my own preferences, seeking to align my appearance with the reverence that God deserves.
Other pastors can dress how they please, but for me, I'm not going to dress better for weddings and funerals than I am when I'm delivering God's message.

A further thought - If one were to consider the predominant position during the time of the Old Testament prophets, a great deal of the time the predominant position was the position of the false prophets and false teachers, NOT the position of the true prophets of God.  In addition, if one were to consider the predominant position during the ministry of our Lord Jesus Christ, the predominant position was NOT on the side of our Lord.  Yet I am quite certain that the true prophets of God and our Lord Jesus Christ were the CORRECT position.  Finding the "majority" position in the conflict of true doctrine versus false doctrine really does not move me much, when I consider how often the true servants of the Lord our God are in the minority.

A further thought - If one were to consider the predominant position during the time of the Old Testament prophets, a great deal of the time the predominant position was the position of the false prophets and false teachers, NOT the position of the true prophets of God.  In addition, if one were to consider the predominant position during the ministry of our Lord Jesus Christ, the predominant position was NOT on the side of our Lord.  Yet I am quite certain that the true prophets of God and our Lord Jesus Christ were the CORRECT position.  Finding the "majority" position in the conflict of true doctrine versus false doctrine really does not move me much, when I consider how often the true servants of the Lord our God are in the minority.

Indeed, for Augustine has led many astray with his false teachings.  (By the way, the statement above seems to work - as long as you hold a loose definition for "Christianity."  However, I myself would contend that any individual or group who teaches a false, unbiblical gospel, while humanly included in Christendom, should not be accepted as a legitimate part of Biblical Christianity.)

A further thought - If one were to consider the predominant position during the time of the Old Testament prophets, a great deal of the time the predominant position was the position of the false prophets and false teachers, NOT the position of the true prophets of God.  In addition, if one were to consider the predominant position during the ministry of our Lord Jesus Christ, the predominant position was NOT on the side of our Lord.  Yet I am quite certain that the true prophets of God and our Lord Jesus Christ were the CORRECT position.  Finding the "majority" position in the conflict of true doctrine versus false doctrine really does not move me much, when I consider how often the true servants of the Lord our God are in the minority.

A further thought - If one were to consider the predominant position during the time of the Old Testament prophets, a great deal of the time the predominant position was the position of the false prophets and false teachers, NOT the position of the true prophets of God.  In addition, if one were to consider the predominant position during the ministry of our Lord Jesus Christ, the predominant position was NOT on the side of our Lord.  Yet I am quite certain that the true prophets of God and our Lord Jesus Christ were the CORRECT position.  Finding the "majority" position in the conflict of true doctrine versus false doctrine really does not move me much, when I consider how often the true servants of the Lord our God are in the minority.

A further thought - If one were to consider the predominant position during the time of the Old Testament prophets, a great deal of the time the predominant position was the position of the false prophets and false teachers, NOT the position of the true prophets of God.  In addition, if one were to consider the predominant position during the ministry of our Lord Jesus Christ, the predominant position was NOT on the side of our Lord.  Yet I am quite certain that the true prophets of God and our Lord Jesus Christ were the CORRECT position.  Finding the "majority" position in the conflict of true doctrine versus false doctrine really does not move me much, when I consider how often the true servants of the Lord our God are in the minority.

Indeed, for Augustine has led many astray with his false teachings.  (By the way, the statement above seems to work - as long as you hold a loose definition for "Christianity."  However, I myself would contend that any individual or group who teaches a false, unbiblical gospel, while humanly included in Christendom, should not be accepted as a legitimate part of Biblical Christianity.)

I fully agree that Hebrews 12:22-23 & Ephesians 2:6 correspond to one another.  Indeed, I believe that Ephesians 2:6 helps to explain how the Church of the First Born in heaven can be a local assembly (in one location - in heaven), yet also include all New Testament believers who are still alive on the earth -- because the Lord our God spiritually sees all of us as presently seated in HEAVENLY places in Christ.  Furthermore, both passages precisely specify that these truths are heavenly, in heavenly places (not on the earth).
Even so, I fully disagree with your allegorical usages of the passages in the Book of the Revelation.  The prophetic utterance concerning the New Jerusalem coming down out of heaven has NOT yet occurred, but is yet to come after the event of the Great White Throne Judgment, which will occur after the end of this first creation through divine fire.  We definitely part company and walk with significant division over the manner in which you handle the Book of the Revelation (which seems to be a "go-to" doctrinal focus for you, as per your primary involvement as you first joined the forum).

Indeed, for Augustine has led many astray with his false teachings.  (By the way, the statement above seems to work - as long as you hold a loose definition for "Christianity."  However, I myself would contend that any individual or group who teaches a false, unbiblical gospel, while humanly included in Christendom, should not be accepted as a legitimate part of Biblical Christianity.)

Yet God's own Word in Hebrews 12:22-23 makes it quite distinct, saying, "But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, THE HEAVENLY JERUSALEM, and to an inumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect . . . ."  I myself would contend that wherein God's own Word makes something precise and specific, we ought not make it general.  By means of this Biblical precision we are able to discern that the "universal heavenly church" does NOT exist and is NOT assembled on the earth.  Members thereof do indeed exist on the earth, but the entity itself exists and is assembled ONLY in heaven.  Indeed, just as the Old Testament tabernacle/temple was intended by the Lord our God as a physical, earthly manifestation of the heavenly temple, even so the local church institution is intended by the Lord our God as a physical, earthly manifestation of the heavenly church.  Thus any attempt to organize a "universal" church on the earth, or to disregard the Biblical local church structure that the Lord our God DID institute for the earth, is contrary to Biblical truth.  Indeed, I would contend that Biblical precision prevents false doctrine and false practice.

Yet God's own Word in Hebrews 12:22-23 makes it quite distinct, saying, "But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, THE HEAVENLY JERUSALEM, and to an inumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect . . . ."  I myself would contend that wherein God's own Word makes something precise and specific, we ought not make it general.  By means of this Biblical precision we are able to discern that the "universal heavenly church" does NOT exist and is NOT assembled on the earth.  Members thereof do indeed exist on the earth, but the entity itself exists and is assembled ONLY in heaven.  Indeed, just as the Old Testament tabernacle/temple was intended by the Lord our God as a physical, earthly manifestation of the heavenly temple, even so the local church institution is intended by the Lord our God as a physical, earthly manifestation of the heavenly church.  Thus any attempt to organize a "universal" church on the earth, or to disregard the Biblical local church structure that the Lord our God DID institute for the earth, is contrary to Biblical truth.  Indeed, I would contend that Biblical precision prevents false doctrine and false practice.

I fully agree that Hebrews 12:22-23 & Ephesians 2:6 correspond to one another.  Indeed, I believe that Ephesians 2:6 helps to explain how the Church of the First Born in heaven can be a local assembly (in one location - in heaven), yet also include all New Testament believers who are still alive on the earth -- because the Lord our God spiritually sees all of us as presently seated in HEAVENLY places in Christ.  Furthermore, both passages precisely specify that these truths are heavenly, in heavenly places (not on the earth).
Even so, I fully disagree with your allegorical usages of the passages in the Book of the Revelation.  The prophetic utterance concerning the New Jerusalem coming down out of heaven has NOT yet occurred, but is yet to come after the event of the Great White Throne Judgment, which will occur after the end of this first creation through divine fire.  We definitely part company and walk with significant division over the manner in which you handle the Book of the Revelation (which seems to be a "go-to" doctrinal focus for you, as per your primary involvement as you first joined the forum).