1 edit
Originally posted by moonbusok i shall reiterate them seeing that you failed to comprehend them the first time and the second and quite possibly the third too.
If there were any actual reasoning in your posts, I would reply to it.
here was your original claim: 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.
The veracity of your assertion that it 'shoots down', the churches traditional argument that there should be no one priests has as its basis the translation of a name from a feminine one to a masculine one and the use of the term apostle. It was pointed out to you, that this cannot be the case for the following reasons (please note the use of the term reasons!)
1. Even if we allow a mistranslation it does note prove that she was a priest for an apostle, from the Greek 'apostolos', literally means a sent one. For example here Jesus uses exactly the same term, “A slave is not greater than his master, nor is one that is sent forth [apostolos] greater than the one that sent him.” After Pentecost 33CE both men and women received Gods Holy spirit and became 'sent ones', publicly preaching and teaching the good News of Gods Kingdom. This is the first reason why your assertion cannot be true, the term 'apostolos' does not refer to a priest, but to a 'sent one'.
2. If apostolos does not refer to a priest what does? The Hebrew term translated 'priest' is 'kohen' and the Greek, 'hiereus'. Why is this important? because none of these terms are found in conjunction with Jania and it therefore cannot be inferred that he or she was a priest. This is further compounded by the fact that there are also two distinct words for those appointed to a position of authority within the congregation, none of which apply here nor are found in conjunction with Junias/Junia making the assertion that it 'shoots down the churches traditional position of why there should be no women priests', as unsubstantiated and thoroughly erroneous.
It should be noted that the early church did not ordain women because of their name, but because of factors laid out elsewhere in scripture. In fact there was no such thing as a clergy laity distinction originally.
Originally posted by moonbusThumbs up. You nutshelled it. 🙂
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.
3 edits
Originally posted by FMFand yet i provide a plethora of reasoning none if which either you or your friends ever focus upon but instead seem forever destined to be obsessed with personalities while writing in Daily Mail journalese!
Thumbs up. You nutshelled it. 🙂
Thumbs up! Footballers wife breaks a nail!
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHe summed up your modus operandi ~ not your personality ~ on this forum. I wouldn't bother to thumbs-up his post if it were merely about the little discussion he happens to be having with you right now.
and yet i provide a plethora of reasoning none if which either you or your friends ever focus upon but instead seem forever destined to be obsessed with personalities while writing in Daily Mail journalese!
Thumbs up! Footballers wife breaks a nail!
5 edits
Originally posted by FMFRather interestingly the ancient Greeks also termed Paul a 'seed picker', and yet he managed despite their criticisms to pen many of the Biblical books that nourish a Christians spirituality.
He summed up your modus operandi ~ not your personality ~ on this forum. I wouldn't bother to thumbs-up his post if it were merely about the little discussion he happens to be having with you right now.
(Acts 17:18) But certain ones of both the Epicurean and the Stoic philosophers took to conversing with him controversially, and some would say: “What is it this chatterer* would like to tell?”
*literally "seed picker"
I reproduce it for your continuing Bible education and edification.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou are comparing your behaviour on these forums to Paul?
Rather interestingly the ancient Greeks also termed Paul a 'seed picker', and yet he managed despite their criticisms to pen many of the Biblical books that nourish a Christians spirituality.
(Acts 17:18) But certain ones of both the Epicurean and the Stoic philosophers took to conversing with him controversially, and some would say: “What is it ...[text shortened]... ke to tell?”
*literally "seed picker"
I reproduce it for your continuing Bible education.
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFYes I understand its a question but I am wondering where it is that I have compared my behaviour to Pauls, if I have not and lets face it, I have not, then why are you asking what appears to be a somewhat abstract question? Do you normally load your questions with insinuations about people for no reason? Why would you do that?
It was a question: You are comparing your behaviour on these forums to Paul?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou suddenly raised the topic of Paul and criticism of him for being a "seed picker" in response to you being criticised for being a cherry picker. What does Paul have to do with the criticism that has been levelled at you by Moonbus?
Yes I understand its a question but I am wondering where it is that I have compared my behaviour to Pauls, if I have not and lets face it, I have not, then why are you asking what appears to be a somewhat abstract question? Do you normally load your questions with insinuations about people for no reason?