 |
Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Message |
Author |
 Shaking my head |
bonnie knox |
See, I don't know how to handle the exchange below. Rather than acknowledge that Silas and Timothy and Apollos are considered apostles, you start quibbling about James. We could ignore James if you want, but that would still leave Silas and Timothy and Apollos!!!
| Aaron Scott wrote: | | bonnie knox wrote: | Aaron, this is what becomes redundant to me. You will make a claim. I will refute it with scripture, but the conclusion you have drawn from your initial claim remains unchanged.
You claim that Junia would be the only apostle mentioned outside of the 11. Then at my prompting to "read your Bible" you remember Barnabas, but still you are clinging to whatever relevance you feel there is that Junia would be unlucky 13.
Now, what about these folks (oh, my, here I go getting redundant and it will not make a bit of difference)--
James the brother of Jesus: Galatians 1:19
Silas and Timothy: 1 Thessalonians 1:1 when taken in conjunction with 1 Thessalonians 2:6
Apollos: 1 Corinthians 4:6-9
And of course Barnabas and Andronicus!
| Aaron Scott wrote: | | bonnie knox wrote: | | Quote: | | If so, she would be the ONLY apostle mentioned outside of the 11 and Paul (if I recall correctly). |
Not only do you need to research, you need to read your Bible. |
OK, maybe Barnabas, too. Can't find any others. And Revelation even gives us some indication that there might be only 12 (though I do believe there are more--even some today).
Bonnie, I do feel for the case of the women. But reading things into a passage will not serve well for the women. |
|
Bonnie, I have to stand with what I said. I do not consider James an apostle, even though he is often mentioned in the same breath, but rather more like the General Overseer. Notice that James is often mentioned separately from the apostles (e.g., "James and the elders," etc.).
....
|
I will cut and paste something Randy Johnson posted here before. It is very well stated.
| Randy Johnson wrote: | Jesus is the Apostle of God. (Heb. 3:1)
There are different types of apostles according to the time they were appointed and the scope of their ministry.
The twelve Jesus appointed during His earthly ministry to be witnesses of His resurrection are The Apostles of the Lamb. (Mark 3:13-19)
Judas lost his place of leadership and was rightfully replaced by Mattathias, since Mattathias met the qualifications enumerated in Acts 1:22-23:
"Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us— 22 beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us—one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.”
Paul should also be included in this group as "one born out of time" because of the circumstances of His calling on the Damascus road. The original twelve, including Mattathias and excluding Judas, are the apostles of the Lamb to the Jews, and Paul is an apostle of the Lamb to the Gentiles.
The third group of apostles are post-Ascension apostles. They are the apostles of Ephesians 4, ascension gifts of Christ to His Church, and are rightfully designated Apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ. Barnabas and Silas, who accompanied Paul, fit into this category of apostle.
It is important to point out that not all New Testament scripture was written by an apostle. Luke was not an apostle, neither was Mark, James, or Jude. |
I will add that Eastern Orthodox Christians consider the 70 disciples "sent" in Luke 10: 1-24 apostles, as well. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
7/31/17 10:19 am
|
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
| Bonnie... |
Aaron Scott |
| bonnie knox wrote: | | Quote: | | I don't see a prohibition either! As I pointed out earlier, I don't see anything that prohibits it...except that vast examples in scripture. As for Deborah, consider that I did mention that women in leadership are the exception, not the rule. |
This is what I don't understand about your thought process. You call the examples of male leadership in the Bible examples, but you don't see the examples of female leadership as examples. Yes, they are fewer, which would certainly be expected given the culture of Biblical times, but they are there, despite the number of times you keep saying
Bonnie, the reason I don't call them examples is because 1) in the NT, there are no examples of women in upper leadership (leading a local body, yes--which is what the Church of God has pretty much embraced since early on), and 2) the key example we have in the OT is Deborah, but that appears to be a one-off thing which pales in comparison to the numerous examples of male leadership.
I think that you want to say if there is ONE example, then it follows that we must take your position. There are plenty of one-time examples in scripture, I imagine, that do not lend themselves to the creation of a rule.
If there were several examples, especially in the NT, I don't think there would be much ground to stand on in terms of opposing your view. But there are not. There are perhaps women who are pastors or other leaders, but the high leadership of the Church--those who make decisions affecting the church-at-large--appears to be exclusively male.
| Quote: | | It doesn't mean there weren't women in leadership...only that we have no evidence of such. |
But the point of my saying there is no prohibition is that you claim I'm seeing Junia as a female apostle because that is necessary to support my viewpoint. It's not necessary to say she was an apostle to support my view that women can be in leadership. |
Yes, it is virtually necessary (though not completely necessary) that your side hold that Junia was a female apostle. However, even if she were a female apostle, I'm not convinced that that would actually change anything, seeing as the upper leadership has been shown to be (apparently) exclusively male.
And, again, you seem to think that if a woman is in ANY role of leadership, that that means she is eligible for leadership of the church at large. But this has never been the issue! I fully admit that there appears to have been women who served as local church leaders, perhaps pastors, perhaps as deacons, etc. What I do not see is that there were any women in leadership beyond the local level. Were their ministers who traveled? I'm sure there were. But the leadership of the church at large seems to remain completely male. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6042
7/31/17 10:46 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Shaking my head |
Aaron Scott |
| bonnie knox wrote: | See, I don't know how to handle the exchange below. Rather than acknowledge that Silas and Timothy and Apollos are considered apostles, you start quibbling about James. We could ignore James if you want, but that would still leave Silas and Timothy and Apollos!!!
| Aaron Scott wrote: | | bonnie knox wrote: | Aaron, this is what becomes redundant to me. You will make a claim. I will refute it with scripture, but the conclusion you have drawn from your initial claim remains unchanged.
You claim that Junia would be the only apostle mentioned outside of the 11. Then at my prompting to "read your Bible" you remember Barnabas, but still you are clinging to whatever relevance you feel there is that Junia would be unlucky 13.
Bonnie, I do not see Timothy or Silas as apostles simply because they are mentioned with Paul. Nor do I see Apollos as an apostle just because he was mentioned in conjunction with Paul.
Now, it might be that they ARE apostles. I just don't see it that way. As for James, like I said he seems to hold some sort of position that seems different from that of the apostles.
But, let's assume that I'm wrong (I'm sure I don't need to do much convincing for your sake).... What if there ARE a number of apostles? What if there are 40 mentioned? It does not mean that Junia is an apostle. As the text reads, it is unclear as to whether "she" is an apostle (the text certainly does not lean that way) OR whether she was held in high regard by the apostles (certainly a more justified reading, I think).
But SUPPOSE she is an apostle. Does that mean that women were, therefore, in the highest rank of church leadership? It does not. She might have been far more qualified than any man serving...and yet we don't have the slightest indication that any woman sat at the highest level of church leadership.
My point is that even if you are granted that Junia is a woman...even if you are granted that she was an apostle...it still does not make the case for you, I don't think. At least it does not conclusively make the case for you.
Now, what about these folks (oh, my, here I go getting redundant and it will not make a bit of difference)--
James the brother of Jesus: Galatians 1:19
Silas and Timothy: 1 Thessalonians 1:1 when taken in conjunction with 1 Thessalonians 2:6
Apollos: 1 Corinthians 4:6-9
And of course Barnabas and Andronicus!
| Aaron Scott wrote: | | bonnie knox wrote: | | Quote: | | If so, she would be the ONLY apostle mentioned outside of the 11 and Paul (if I recall correctly). |
Not only do you need to research, you need to read your Bible. |
OK, maybe Barnabas, too. Can't find any others. And Revelation even gives us some indication that there might be only 12 (though I do believe there are more--even some today).
Bonnie, I do feel for the case of the women. But reading things into a passage will not serve well for the women. |
|
Bonnie, I have to stand with what I said. I do not consider James an apostle, even though he is often mentioned in the same breath, but rather more like the General Overseer. Notice that James is often mentioned separately from the apostles (e.g., "James and the elders," etc.).
....
|
I will cut and paste something Randy Johnson posted here before. It is very well stated.
| Randy Johnson wrote: | Jesus is the Apostle of God. (Heb. 3:1)
There are different types of apostles according to the time they were appointed and the scope of their ministry.
The twelve Jesus appointed during His earthly ministry to be witnesses of His resurrection are The Apostles of the Lamb. (Mark 3:13-19)
Judas lost his place of leadership and was rightfully replaced by Mattathias, since Mattathias met the qualifications enumerated in Acts 1:22-23:
"Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us— 22 beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us—one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.”
Paul should also be included in this group as "one born out of time" because of the circumstances of His calling on the Damascus road. The original twelve, including Mattathias and excluding Judas, are the apostles of the Lamb to the Jews, and Paul is an apostle of the Lamb to the Gentiles.
The third group of apostles are post-Ascension apostles. They are the apostles of Ephesians 4, ascension gifts of Christ to His Church, and are rightfully designated Apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ. Barnabas and Silas, who accompanied Paul, fit into this category of apostle.
It is important to point out that not all New Testament scripture was written by an apostle. Luke was not an apostle, neither was Mark, James, or Jude. |
I will add that Eastern Orthodox Christians consider the 70 disciples "sent" in Luke 10: 1-24 apostles, as well. |
|
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6042
7/31/17 10:54 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Cojak |
Since I am really not smart enough to state a deep Biblical opinion I want to commend the ones who are making their case in this long running thread. Again I am learning much on the subject and also seeing opinions I never considered.
The only thing I cannot escape is the timeline and the prevalent attitude toward women at the time. (I added a bunch but deleted it as not pertinent to the subject at hand.)
I am enjoying this. THANKS! Even when you verbally come out of your corners.   (a fisty cuff thing) 
_________________
Some facts but mostly just my opinion!
jacsher@aol.com
http://shipslog-jack.blogspot.com/ |
01000001 01100011 01110100 01110011
Posts: 24285
7/31/17 11:07 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| No, Aaron, you are misrepresenting "my side" |
bonnie knox |
As I've mentioned before (sorry to be redundant), the nature of "authority" seems to be at issue here. Christ is where authority comes from. So if Christ commissions someone to spread his gospel, that is as authoritative as one can get. Why was it that Paul did not need to consult with Jerusalem Council (or any other flesh and blood) about his call (Galatians 1:16-17)?
So you keep saying upper leadership, but what about it makes it "upper"? What on earth would "denominational" level have meant with respect to Paul? And why would he not have needed to consult with the Jerusalem Council if that is what you are calling "upper leadership."
What "level" of leadership did Deborah have?
What I keep hearing is that somehow authority means bossing others around, and I don't think that is how Christ expects the church to operate since he distinctly said that the Gentiles exercise authority over others but among his disciples that would not be so.
Also consider that when Paul chided the Corinthian church for not ousting the man who was fornicating with his father's wife, he doesn't seem to be addressing just a "pastor" or "elder." He seems to be expecting the church as a whole to do what is necessary (and of course the church as a whole is made up of men and women).
It seems to me you are trying to make the Church of God Executive Council equivalent to the Jerusalem Council. In that case, shouldn't they also be Jews?
| Quote: | Yes, it is virtually necessary (though not completely necessary) that your side hold that Junia was a female apostle. However, even if she were a female apostle, I'm not convinced that that would actually change anything, seeing as the upper leadership has been shown to be (apparently) exclusively male.
And, again, you seem to think that if a woman is in ANY role of leadership, that that means she is eligible for leadership of the church at large. But this has never been the issue! I fully admit that there appears to have been women who served as local church leaders, perhaps pastors, perhaps as deacons, etc. What I do not see is that there were any women in leadership beyond the local level. Were their ministers who traveled? I'm sure there were. But the leadership of the church at large seems to remain completely male. |
|
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
7/31/17 11:36 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| Quote: | | I think that you want to say if there is ONE example, then it follows that we must take your position. There are plenty of one-time examples in scripture, I imagine, that do not lend themselves to the creation of a rule. |
What I'm saying is that examples can be instructive (unless you are bent on dismissing them because they don't fit your narrative).
So far, I don't see you acknowledging anything about Deborah's leadership other than it was exceptional! LOL!! |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
7/31/17 12:17 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Oh, and I think your anagram is missing the letter 'b' |
bonnie knox |
| Quote: | | We know that the husband is the head of the wife. But some (WHOM I SHALL NOT MENTION HERE EXCEPT IN ANAGRAM FORM: MONSTERS SERMONET) have already decided that that is no longer the case. |
Of course, this is just designed to rile someone up by saying if he interprets "head" differently, he has abandoned scripture altogether.
The dear brother I mentioned who claimed the Latin scholars couldn't decide where the accent mark went ended his speech with this soaring rhetoric "The day we vote against scripture is the day we've doomed ourselves."
Of course the implication is that if we don't see the scripture the way he does, we've doomed ourselves.
To which I say, codswallop, poppycock, and balderdash. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
7/31/17 12:33 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: What have you read? |
Aaron Scott |
| bonnie knox wrote: | | Quote: | | I've read plenty about it. I find that most of the time people are just looking for confirmation of what the believe, not for any thing to change their minds (perhaps that applies to me too). |
See, just this dismissive, "Well, you're just reading one side of the issue," isn't going to wash with me.
What kind of credibility do your sources have?
If you have credible evidence that Junia was not a woman apostle, speak up! |
I don't have any "sources." I am basing my position on the scripture and my own reasoning ability (such as it is).
Look, you have at least three hurdles to get over (perhaps more):
1) Is Junia a woman?
2) Even if Junia is a woman, is she an apostle?
3) Even if she is a woman and an apostle, does it therefore follow that there is now scriptural justification for women in the highest ranks of leadership?
I have no trouble accepting that Junia is a woman. I don't know that Junia is a woman, but it is not a problem for me to accept that she is.
BUT...there is a serious issue with claiming she is an apostle. And not just an apostle (although that is great in itself), but a NOTED apostle. You just cannot extract that from the language without being fairly challenged on the matter.
BUT EVEN THEN, it has already been acknowledged that women held local leadership positions...but NONE (so far as we know) in the highest level of the church. Consider that even the women that were the first at Jesus' tomb, that Bro. Wright uses to claim some sort of validity for women in high leadership (and which does not necessarily follow from that at all!), even these women of the highest reputation are not at all mentioned as in leadership in the Jerusalem ranks (which was, for all practical purposes, the highest level of leadership at that time).
THEN, as if that is not enough, the claim is that it was relatively recently when the church began claiming that Junia was a man (and, perhaps at nearly the same time, that she was not an apostle). But that flies in the face of what we use in apologetics to "prove" the resurrention of Jesus.
It is claimed that if the early church had written/claimed that Jesus was resurrected, but He had not actually been resurrected, then all the unbelievers had to do was produce the body. It never happened.
Same with Junia. If Junia was held to be a woman (and perhaps an apostle) for CENTURIES, you can be sure that there is going to be a major stir about the matter if someone just decides to make the opposite claim. Instead, we do no seem to find that. Was this all due to some conspiracy of the Church to, Da Vinci Code-like, squelch the feminine in Christianity? Or was it because while there might indeed have been a some who claimed she was a woman...or claimed she was an apostle...or claimed that women were supposed to be in the highest levels of church leadership...there was NOT any overwhelming presence of those who help such positions?
We all are guilty, I suppose, of cherry-picking our proof texts and our proof "sources" of information. We want to choose the ones that agree with us...and resist those that do not agree.
But like I said, I don't have an "sources" other than the scripture. That doesn't make me superior--in fact, it might make me seem quite shallow, I suppose. But at the end of the day ("you're another day older"-SMILE), scripture is going to trump EVERYTHING ELSE.
Let's do a little mental exercise.... Let's say we find "that Jezebel's" written record of how she argued and "explained" that fornication was acceptable for Christians. It might make great sense (e.g., claiming that grace covers all...claiming that the flesh is going to burn up and no longer has any bearing on spiritual things...etc.), but the scriptures would obviously carry the day...and she would wind up being just what she's called--"that Jezebel."
So I am not trying to array a vast and exalted level of sources. I care (as I know you do, too) only about whether the case is made in the scripture...or is prohibited...or otherwise gives us pause.
I certainly don't think the scriptures MUST give us direction for every little thing (if so, we'd have to do away with Sunday School...and maybe even music in the NT church), but for me there ought not to be anything that would lead us to think we are doing something that is not in full accord with the examples and standards of scripture.
And that is all I've got. If that's not enough, we'll just have to agree to disagree. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6042
7/31/17 5:27 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| Quote: | | I am basing my position on the scripture and my own reasoning ability (such as it is). |
I just want to channel NBF right now so bad.  |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
7/31/17 8:25 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Oh, and I think your anagram is missing the letter 'b' |
Aaron Scott |
| bonnie knox wrote: | | Quote: | | We know that the husband is the head of the wife. But some (WHOM I SHALL NOT MENTION HERE EXCEPT IN ANAGRAM FORM: MONSTERS SERMONET) have already decided that that is no longer the case. |
Of course, this is just designed to rile someone up by saying if he interprets "head" differently, he has abandoned scripture altogether.
The dear brother I mentioned who claimed the Latin scholars couldn't decide where the accent mark went ended his speech with this soaring rhetoric "The day we vote against scripture is the day we've doomed ourselves."
Of course the implication is that if we don't see the scripture the way he does, we've doomed ourselves.
To which I say, codswallop, poppycock, and balderdash. |
Now, Bonnie, do you know my heart? I don't at all think that that anagram guy has abandoned scripture. No, I don't think he interprets it the right way, but he feels similarly about me, but I don't suppose he thinks I'm abandoning scripture!
Please know that I DO NOT feel that way...about him or you. I know it's just a disagreement on interpretation and/or reasoning. Nothing more. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6042
8/1/17 6:25 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| Quote: | | Same with Junia. If Junia was held to be a woman (and perhaps an apostle) for CENTURIES, you can be sure that there is going to be a major stir about the matter if someone just decides to make the opposite claim. Instead, we do no seem to find that. |
I think you're witnessing the major stir right now. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
8/1/17 7:26 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| Quote: | | Now, Bonnie, do you know my heart? I don't at all think that that anagram guy has abandoned scripture. No, I don't think he interprets it the right way, but he feels similarly about me, but I don't suppose he thinks I'm abandoning scripture! |
Some of your words seem to indicate that it is not just a matter of interpretation,
| Quote: | | But IF we are going to argue the point, then the Bible's CLEAR example and CLEAR statements lead us to male-centric role. |
| Quote: | | But the point of all this is that you simply cannot make Junia an apostle with the scripture that you have offered. |
| Quote: | | But all of these things would not align with the examples of scripture, the text of scripture, and the traditions of the church. |
but if you say you recognize different people have different interpretations while still holding the scripture in high regard, I accept that. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
8/1/17 7:43 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| Quote: | | BUT...there is a serious issue with claiming she is an apostle. And not just an apostle (although that is great in itself), but a NOTED apostle. You just cannot extract that from the language without being fairly challenged on the matter. |
I think the problem is that you are only looking at the English translation. The people who are convinced that Junia was a noted apostle are looking at the Greek as well as what the church fathers (who knew Greek) said. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
8/1/17 9:26 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Isn't that something, Bonnie? |
Aaron Scott |
| bonnie knox wrote: | | Quote: | | Same with Junia. If Junia was held to be a woman (and perhaps an apostle) for CENTURIES, you can be sure that there is going to be a major stir about the matter if someone just decides to make the opposite claim. Instead, we do no seem to find that. |
I think you're witnessing the major stir right now. |
That only NOW--oddly enough, at a time when diversity seeks to control even the church--that this is a big deal?
Why wasn't it before? If you tell me that those guys who tried to keep Mary Magdalene out of the limelight are the cause of it, we're through!  |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6042
8/1/17 10:38 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Bonnie.... |
Aaron Scott |
| bonnie knox wrote: | | Quote: | | Now, Bonnie, do you know my heart? I don't at all think that that anagram guy has abandoned scripture. No, I don't think he interprets it the right way, but he feels similarly about me, but I don't suppose he thinks I'm abandoning scripture! |
Some of your words seem to indicate that it is not just a matter of interpretation,
| Quote: | | But IF we are going to argue the point, then the Bible's CLEAR example and CLEAR statements lead us to male-centric role. |
| Quote: | | But the point of all this is that you simply cannot make Junia an apostle with the scripture that you have offered. |
| Quote: | | But all of these things would not align with the examples of scripture, the text of scripture, and the traditions of the church. |
but if you say you recognize different people have different interpretations while still holding the scripture in high regard, I accept that. |
Indeed, even those who disagree with me believe the Bible was male-centric. The argument from them seems to be that we should evolve (and I believe that to a certain extent--we certainly should have more insight after 2000 years of pondering scripture!). I am staking my claim on what the Bible actually says...and not on any insistence that we should have a more enlightened view by now (which may be TRUE!). Indeed, perhaps we ought to have a different view, but if you want to go with the scriptures alone, you have to admit the obvious male-centricity of the matter. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6042
8/1/17 10:41 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| Quote: | That only NOW--oddly enough, at a time when diversity seeks to control even the church--that this is a big deal?
Why wasn't it before? |
I think you first have to ask why after centuries of understanding her to be a female apostle, it was changed in the first place. Secondly, the change from female to male seems rather recent for the most part:
"The seven earliest English versions, from Tyndale (1525–1534) to the KJV (1611), all have Junia as a woman. From the Revised Version (1881) until the New Living Translation (1996), 21 English translations have the masculine, while 10 have the feminine."
"According to Epp’s table, 38 Greek New Testaments, beginning with Erasmus (1516) through Eberhard Nestle in 1920, use the name Iounían, indicating feminine gender for Junia. During those centuries, there is only one exception: Alford in the nineteenth century uses the masculine form but puts the feminine in the apparatus.
From the Nestle version of 1927 through the UBS Greek New Testament of 1993, only the Hodges-Farstad New Testament of 1982 uses the feminine; the other 14 versions use the masculine, often without an alternate explanation in the apparatus. This trend is reversed with the 1994 Kurt Aland and the UBS 1998 versions, which return to the feminine with no alternate reading."
|
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
8/1/17 10:58 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| Quote: | | Indeed, perhaps we ought to have a different view, but if you want to go with the scriptures alone, you have to admit the obvious male-centricity of the matter. |
What about the obvious Jewish-centricity of the leaders in the Bible? |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
8/1/17 11:00 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Bonnie--AGREED! |
Aaron Scott |
| bonnie knox wrote: | | Quote: | | Indeed, perhaps we ought to have a different view, but if you want to go with the scriptures alone, you have to admit the obvious male-centricity of the matter. |
What about the obvious Jewish-centricity of the leaders in the Bible? |
If you want to make the case for women in leadership, you are virtually forced to claim an evolved understanding of the scriptures. You can find a verse here and there to support women in high leadership, but even more that would support the other side.
There are definite points of view in the scripture--some that have been done away with...some that have been carried on. If you want to argue for women in leadership, it becomes necessary to claim that the male-centricity of scripture was only for then, was just the writers' prejudices leaking through, etc. What you cannot do is claim that the scripture supports women in high leadership from the actual text...at least not very effectively, I don't think. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6042
8/1/17 11:24 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| What about leadership being Jewish? |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
8/1/17 11:39 am
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
