Jim_Alaska

Some information concerning the Greek name "Iounian" (Junia) in Romans 16:7.  It is true that an "an" declension at the end of a Greek word commonly conveys that the Greek word is feminine.  However, such is NOT universally the case in the Greek language.  There are some Greek words that carry what appears to be a feminine declension (containing the "a" element), but are NOT feminine words.  To illustrate -- In Romans 16:8 the apostle Paul mentions "Amplian" (Amplias).  Herein we notice that the name "Amplian" does indeed carry the "an" declension at the end of the word.  However, in the Greek the descriptive phrase "my beloved in the Lord" clearly carries the masculine Greek declension, clearly revealing that "Amplian" is masculine, even though the Greek ending to his name is "an."  Actually, the so-called Greek grammar convention that Dr. Morley has employed in his above argumentation is that which is obscure, NOT the clear teaching of 1 Timothy 2:9-15 (which is found within a broader context wherein the apostle Paul is providing instruction on how we ought to behave ourselves "in the house of God, which is the church of the living God").

I wish to publicly add my voice - Amen, and AMEN!  I agree with Brother Dave fully in his above posting.

Without wanting to argue with this guy - there is no point arguing with a man such as this - I will point out a few things:
After my initial post in this thread, where I stated that Bible truth is truth, He refused to acknowledge that the Bible has absolute truths but instead manoeuvred around the point to state that all sorts of groups believe what they follow is Bible truth. In doing so, he promotes the point of view that the Bible has no absolute truths, but only perceived truths. This aligns with his presented "bible studies", which are all about perception and "interpretation".
 
Then after my second post he first states only his opinion (and the opinions of others) that Junia is a female name. He is relying on the convention in Greek that male names end in a consonant and female names end in a vowel. But this is the ONLY evidence that can be presented and it is not a 100% certainty. As displayed by for instance.... Aquila.... who is married to Priscilla.
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.
Apparently, because of the surrounding language Aquila is a man ("His wife"), but if we insist that the regular convention be 100% consistent then this couple would fit right into today's societal redefinitons. (He will probably use this in his next book as a proof of alternative lifestyles being promoted in the Bible).
Further, he discards the word "kinsmen" as being generic and non-gendered, because it suits his argument, however the Bible uses two words, and these are clearly used according to whether only men are referred to or more generically, a group of people which could include women.
Luk 2:44
(44)  But they, supposing him to have been in the company, went a day's journey; and they sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintance.
Luk 21:16
(16)  And ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolks, and friends; and some of you shall they cause to be put to death.
The only use of "kinsman/men being in dispute being this one referring to Junia, which is only in dispute because people WANT Junia to be a female name, WITH NO EVIDENCE of such.
He also admits that husband and wife are inherently masculine and inherently feminine but the sidesteps that entirely to force the verse to be irrelevant with a side argument which is not relevant to the discussion.
In doing so, he makes the Word of God to none effect with humanistic reasonings, again emphasising the point that he has no regard to what the Word of God actually says.
This man has constantly and consistently ignored what the Bible actually says in order to redefine, re-understand, reinterpret, and simply outright ignore what the Word of God actually says.
He does this in every thread he has posted or participated in (as far as I can see), and he has come onto an Independent Baptist forum to make merchandise of the Lord (he promoted his books aggressively until he was told he was not allowed to do so here), and to try to sway anyone who comes looking for Bible truth away from Bible truth. Bible truth which he believes is entirely relative to who is reading it, as I pointed out in my first statements on this post.
Finally, anyone who disagrees with him he proclaims to be dishonest, mean spirited, and not acting according to the directions of the Lord, or in a manner aligning with a "Good Christian character".
To that I say only:
Tit 3:9-11
(9)  But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.
(10)  A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;
(11)  Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.
 
and:
Rom 16:17-18
(17)  Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
(18)  For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.
 
It is indeed Biblical to mark out men such as this man, who has posted foolish questions designed to sway people from the simplicity in Christ, and who has by his actions before he was stopped, shown that his purpose was to swell his own belly by the merchandising of his own thoughts as he promoted his own writings, the whole while twisting and ignoring the Word of God, claiming that it is not the Word of God as it is written.
 
My advice to anyone reading OLB at this time, is that where you see this man's name on a post, you need to be aware that this man does not value the Word of God as the Word of God, he has no desire to reveal the truth of the Word of God, but only his own perceptions and interpretations of the Word of God, and the god that he follows is simply not the God of the Bible.
And finally, none of this is an unfounded personal attack, as the facts that I state are clearly seen in his own posts and answers to other people's posts. I am not angry, other than to be offended at the blatant misuse, mirepresentation, and wresting of the Word of God, and disguised evil intent to draw people away from biblical truth. I am not attacking the man, but what the man has said and presented on this forum. It does however indicate the character of such a man and as such he will no doubt cry "ad hominin" to it.
 

You didn't tel me, I would have been there.  ? 

Teaching is far different from the call to pastor/shepherd. All Christians have the "authority", or should I say, the command to teach others. You're still reaching, Doc. 

"A lot can be deduced" from just about every verse or small section of scripture. The JWs and Mormons are prime examples of those that have done "a lot of deduction".
None of your deduction, however, makes either Andronicus or Junia an actual officially designated Apostle as were Peter, Paul, Matthew, John, James, etc.
To your second point, many have been imprisoned for their faith to this day. Are they all then to be officially designated Apostles as were Peter, Paul, Matthew, John, James, etc.?
To your third point we all do work that the Apostles had done. If we are active Christians, we likely dabble in just about every discipline in the church to some extent. That does not qualify us to wear every title.
Jesus Himself gave us all the Great Commission: Matthew 28:18-20 All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
By your definitions above, and through this commission by Jesus Himself, I guess all Christians could be officially designated as Apostles as were Peter, Paul, Matthew, John, James, etc.
It really depends on how far you are willing to dilute God's word to suit your own agenda. But if we are all Apostles, what need have we for prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers (Eph 4:11); or bishops and deacons (1 Tim. 3), or elders (Titus 1:5)?
I prefer not to be in the practice of dilution. The Apostles are clearly named in the Bible. I need not add to their number to bolster any private interpretation.
 
 

"who are of note among the apostles" could just as easily mean 'who are esteemed by the apostles'. In other words, when the apostles consider these two individuals, they are held in high regard. There is no need to force the title of Apostle on either of these two, whether they be male or female.

I  burned some hot dogs as well. Yummo (pulled pork does sound tasty - as does chicken and rice!)

Thank you for your reply to this conversation Dave. Although you don't post much; when you do it is always well thought out and biblically correct.

You didn't tel me, I would have been there.  ? 

Thank you for your reply to this conversation Dave. Although you don't post much; when you do it is always well thought out and biblically correct.

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.
 

A little late as this is now about a month old, but one my daughter graduated this year from VBC with an advanced church music degree. @Napsterdad Wish you could have been there to meet you.

I find it quite ironic that you, as a professing Christian, would attempt to explain away literal Scripture with your own opinions. The Holy Spirit was not wrong or in error when He inspired words and phrases as He did.
As for me, I choose to believe Scripture rather than your interpretation of it. This is especially relevant when your supposed interpretation includes words such as: "likely, apparently, evidently, It seems, not necessarily."
How about this; can you provide Scriptural proof of your assertion that, "he shall rule over thee, is ended at the cross?" Or how about: "gender neutrality is evident,"
You seem to rely heavily on extra-biblical interpretation. In plain words, according to you, your understanding supersedes plain, literal, Holy Spirit inspired Scripture.

Context is King. Your beliefs and assertions are out of context. The context in this thread is limited to women as Pastors, as verified by your own words in the title of your thread.
Women leading in any other capacity is a completely different subject, and deserving of its own thread.

I was about  to say the same when I saw that you already said it. Thanks, right on.

These verses still are not talking about women as pastors. It's talking about the speaking in tongues and prophesying and the order of things. So, I see you are still trying to push an interpretation that simply is not there.  And as far as Deborah is concerned, again, she was a judge, not a pastor. This has in no way proven your point. God's word doesn't contradict itself, and using your interpretation of scripture would lead us to do just that.

You're not doing a great job in your hermeneutics, Doc. Sorry...it just doesn't pass muster here. So, I guess once again, you're twisting scripture to fit your ideology instead of letting scripture say what it says. Context and content, brother....context and content. 

Deborah was a judge, not a pastor.

https://nypost.com/2023/06/03/massachusetts-first-congregational-church-destroyed-in-fire/

Four years ago today my little sister LeAnne went home to be with the Lord after a valiant, three year battle against breast cancer. During those three years she had so many wonderful opportunities to share the gospel with those around her, and many came to know the Lord. I miss my sister a lot. She was one of the three in my family that I had no problem talking to and spending time with. I know that I will see her again when I also go home. Praise the Lord for salvation, and for his unfailing goodness to us.
BT

Our spiritual predecessors vehemently defended Bible-based beliefs that turned out to be biblically wrong. Could it be that we are not doctrinally perfect in ours? Very often, we don't see the need for change because we find security in our church’s traditional views, especially if they’re ancient. But history has shown that God’s people have had to repent of their supposed biblically sound views. Even the ancient ones. These changes didn't always come quickly or easily because beliefs are deep-set into our biblical worldview.
Peter struggled with the idea of being told, in a vision, to eat biblically unclean food. He even went so far as to resist God, saying, “Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean” (Acts 10:14). Some Jewish believers in Christ struggled to accept gentiles didn't need to be circumcised (Acts 15:1,5; Gal. 2:4,12,13). And, only relatively recently did Christians throw off God-appointed kings and moved away from slavery.
Concerning kings, God's word says, "And he changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings" (Dan. 2:21). Scripture says nothing explicitly about changing from God-appointed kings to democracy. And, yet, Christians have come to understand that the Bible gives every right to do so. Throwing off slavery wasn't so straightforward, either. The following is an extract from The Gospel Coalition article, How and Why Did Some Christians Defend Slavery?
·         In 1847, [Baptist minister] Fuller and Brown University president Francis Wayland published Domestic Slavery Considered as a Scriptural Institution. The heart of the matter boiled down to a simple question: Is slavery, in principle, a sin? Wayland argued it is. Fuller disagreed.
·         Fuller raised concerns about slavery’s abuses, but he defended it nonetheless. How did he, and others like him, use Scripture to advocate for slavery?
·         Fuller argued that slavery, in principle, is not sinful. Undergirding his argument was his abiding conviction that the Bible is the inspired and authoritative Word of God. The Bible alone has the right to define sin. Once sin has been identified, it is humanity’s responsibility to repent. If “slavery be a sin,” Fuller wrote, “surely it is the immediate duty of masters to abolish it, whatever be the result.” Having established the supremacy of Scripture, Fuller proceeded to interpret its view of slavery.
·         ...
·         For Fuller the matter was simple: If Old Testament saints owned slaves, and if the apostle Paul preached “the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27) without explicitly prohibiting slavery, then no man can rightly call slavery, in principle, a sin. In short:
·         Slavery was everywhere a part of the social organization of the earth; and slaves and their masters were members together of the churches; and minute instructions are given to each as to their duties, without even an insinuation that it was the duty of masters to emancipate. Now I ask, could this possibly be so, if slavery were “a heinous sin”? No!
·         ...
·         Wayland had great affection for Fuller, but he had no respect for his interpretation of the Bible on this issue. The holes in Fuller’s interpretation are legion, Wayland insisted, and these arguments against slavery stand the test of time.
·         ...
·         True, no prooftext dismantled Roman slavery with a single blow. Yet taken as a whole, the Bible decimated slavery with a thousand hits. As the Bible is preached and believed over time, Wayland believed, the implications of the gospel would ensure slavery’s end.
Is it possible that we, too, have changes to make? Does our current interpretation of Scripture make it impossible to see? And does our adamancy serve only to reinforce our position and stop up our ears? After all, "God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble" (James 4:6).
Acts 15:1-32 gives many principles on how the believers came to agree that gentiles did not need to be circumcised. I believe the same argument Peter used of the work of the Holy Spirit in the gentiles also confirms that women can indeed teach men and be pastors. After all, many women appointed by their churches as pastors have demonstrated that the Holy Spirit is with them in their work and teaching.
To many, this flies contrary to Paul's words in 1 Timothy 2:12 and 3:1, and elsewhere. But, have they misunderstood Paul? Keep in mind that Peter speaks of "[Paul's] epistles . . . in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures" (2 Peter 3:16).
I believe the KJV best demonstrates Paul's emphatic response to the Corinthian church's questions on this matter. "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?" (1 Cor. 14:34-36). The Oxford Bible Church explains this well in their article, 1 CORINTHIANS 14:34-35: SHOULD WOMEN BE SILENT IN CHURCH?
At the council in Acts 15, James pointed to prophecies from the Old Testament concerning the inclusion of gentiles. Similarly, the prophets spoke of female emancipation among the people of God. Earlier, in Acts 2:16-18, Peter proclaimed, "But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy."
I know that some in the Baptist church are at this crossroads. Baptist (complementarian) beliefs concerning the role of women can be found in several places. Here are some links:
A Believers' Baptist Church Distinctive: the role of Family.
Baptist2Baptist article, Southern Baptists and Women Pastors.
Multiple links to the complementarian view can be found at The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) - Women in Ministry
Egalitarian views have been outlined in many places too. Here are two:
Fuller Seminary article, Women in Ministry: Equally Called.
CBE International Biblical Egalitarianism and the Inerrancy of Scripture.
I have shared my thoughts. May God bless you as you seek God's face and the Scriptures concerning His.

TBH, I came to the same conclusion after reading your post(s).  Seem to answer a question that wasn't the question. Logically speaking, answering the way you did implicates what Jim said.
 As the author of this thread, I'm closing this topic before it get's like others.

I ask for Scripture and only Scripture and the above is what you give me.
So, according to YOU, God sent me a love letter (Scripture), but it is not possible for me to understand it without you interpreting it for me.

I ask for Scripture and only Scripture and the above is what you give me.
So, according to YOU, God sent me a love letter (Scripture), but it is not possible for me to understand it without you interpreting it for me.