Jesus was married!:

Originally posted by moonbus
There was also a female apostle, Junia (mistranslated as the masculine Junias, Romans 16:7). That shoots down the Church's traditional argument why there should be no women priests.

Moonbus,
Unless I am wrong according to the bible, the only ones who were to be priests were sons of Aaron, an Israelite, and even male Levites could not be priests; and, there is no more need for priests because Jesus has become the Christian's High Priest. Christ Himself took on our sins and no more sacrifice is needed for sins according to the bible.

And where is Junia told about in the bible?

Originally posted by divegeester
You should ask RJHinds what he thinks, he's an expert on this sort of thing.

Also didn't you once claim that Jesus never existed. How can this not be a forgery if Jesus never existed?

This article may be of interest to some concerning this subject:

Was Jesus Married? A Religion Scholar Decodes the Clues

http://truth-out.org/news/item/11993-was-jesus-married-a-religion-scholar-decodes-the-clues

Originally posted by Suzianne
There is no 'traditional argument' that there should be no women priests, unless by Church (big C) you mean the Roman Catholic Church.

My church has women priests, including my local congregation. I've spoken with her at length, we've even gone shopping for shoes together. I've treated her to lunch many times.

There is zero reason why there should not be women priests, but there's plenty of excuses.

The Church (cap. 'C' ) is the Roman Catholic one, and it has been their traditional excuse for not ordaining women that there were no female apostles. It is obvious why the Roman bishops caused the mention of a female apostle to be expunged from the canon: they wanted to keep the club of bishops closed. It is a lame justification, I agree; none of the apostles was blonde-haired blue-eyed either, but I know of no Catholic bishop who would cite that as a reason why only Levites should be inducted into the priesthood.

Anglicans, of course, take a different view of these things and have shown willingness to ordain both women and gays. Whereas Greek and Russian Orthodox probably take an even stricter view than the Vatican. Christianity is very varied, if nothing else.

Reply to KoP: there is a vast amount of Christian history NOT in the Bible which is highly relevant to these doctrinal discussions. The Bible does not accurately render what Christians thought around the time of Christ; it represents what Roman bishops in the 3d C. after Christ WANTED people to think. If you want to understand your own religion, I suggest you study history. Quoting miles of Scripture exhibits pedantry, not understanding.

Jesus was married?

Well the Bible does say that Jesus bore our grief and sorrows, so it sounds about right to me. 😛

Originally posted by whodey
Jesus was married?

Well the Bible does say that Jesus bore our grief and sorrows, so it sounds about right to me. 😛

I'm not buying it, not for a second.

There's no reason God would go to the extreme of having Jesus born of a virgin if He was only going to turn around and ruin it by getting married. It makes no sense. Jesus, the Lamb of God, by necessity, had to have been born without sin (by not having a human father) and was sinless his entire life.

Originally posted by Suzianne
I'm not buying it, not for a second.

There's no reason God would go to the extreme of having Jesus born of a virgin if He was only going to turn around and ruin it by getting married. It makes no sense. Jesus, the Lamb of God, by necessity, had to have been born without sin (by not having a human father) and was sinless his entire life.

I was joking Suzzy.

We are talking about God in the flesh here. He is far to insigtful to ever walk down the isle. 😛

Originally posted by whodey
I was joking Suzzy.

We are talking about God in the flesh here. He is far to insigtful to ever walk down the isle. 😛

It would have served as a horrible distraction and endangered his mission, no doubt.

Originally posted by Suzianne
I'm not buying it, not for a second.

There's no reason God would go to the extreme of having Jesus born of a virgin if He was only going to turn around and ruin it by getting married. It makes no sense. Jesus, the Lamb of God, by necessity, had to have been born without sin (by not having a human father) and was sinless his entire life.

Do you consider a man getting married and having sex with his wife sinful?

Is that what you mean by your statement here? - There was no reason for Jesus to be born of a virgin if He was only going to turn around and ruin it by getting married.

If not, what is the meaning?

Originally posted by Suzianne
I'm not buying it, not for a second.

There's no reason God would go to the extreme of having Jesus born of a virgin if He was only going to turn around and ruin it by getting married. It makes no sense. Jesus, the Lamb of God, by necessity, had to have been born without sin (by not having a human father) and was sinless his entire life.

(going to be sorry I asked, but) How does getting married ruin it?

Originally posted by moonbus
Google "apostle Junia". You'll get nearly 6,000 hits. What more proof do you need?

I am well aware of the controversy and have ably demonstrated why assumptions concerning the term apostle cannot be substantiated! for even if there was a person Junia given the designation apostle i have shown that it simply means 'a sent one' and that the term for those appointed to authority in scripture is entirely different making any connection to the so called ordination of women quite ludicrous. Number of hits is a fallacious argument and amounts to, because many people say its true, it must be true, i dont think so.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I am well aware of the controversy and have ably demonstrated why assumptions concerning the term apostle cannot be substantiated! for even if there was a person Junia given the designation apostle i have shown that it simply means 'a sent one' and that the term for those appointed to authority in scripture is entirely different making any connectio ...[text shortened]... ous argument and amounts to, because many people say its true, it must be true, i dont think so.

"Number of hits is a fallacious argument and amounts to, because many people say its true, it must be true, i dont think so."

Previously posted by robbie carrobie in another thread
"All one needs to do is goggle [sic] 'debunking common descent' and one is presented with a plethora of material, a veritable Aladdins cave of goodies!"

Originally posted by moonbus
"Number of hits is a fallacious argument and amounts to, because many people say its true, it must be true, i dont think so."

Previously posted by robbie carrobie in another thread
"All one needs to do is goggle [sic] 'debunking common descent' and one is presented with a plethora of material, a veritable Aladdins cave of goodies!"

then my argument against common descent must suffer the same fate as yours with regard to Junia, its a logical fallacy, either way, i have produced evidence why your assumptions are assumptions and why any inferences to the ordination of women on their basis is quite unsubstantiated, you may make references to those.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
then my argument against common descent must suffer the same fate as yours with regard to Junia, its a logical fallacy, either way, i have produced evidence why your assumptions are assumptions and why any inferences to the ordination of women on their basis is quite unsubstantiated, you may make references to those.

Robbie, you are a cherry picker. You know what a cherry picker is? It is a person who picks out the bits of something which suit him, and disregards/dismisses/discredits the bits which don't. You cherry-pick your information from the Internet, you cherry-pick Christianity, and you retro-actively cherry-pick your own previous posts to this forum.

Originally posted by moonbus
Robbie, you are a cherry picker. You know what a cherry picker is? It is a person who picks out the bits of something which suit him, and disregards/dismisses/discredits the bits which don't. You cherry-pick your information from the Internet, you cherry-pick Christianity, and you retro-actively cherry-pick your own previous posts to this forum.

try addressing the actual reasoning in a post, who knows, you may not have to resort to logical fallacies in future.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
try addressing the actual reasoning in a post, who knows, you may not have to resort to logical fallacies in future.

If there were any actual reasoning in your posts, I would reply to it.