Only one female speaker at General Conference this weekend

[_zerinus]

Here is my post on the subject for all who are interested:

The Apostle Junia

Someone on Facebook tried to argue this with me a couple of weeks ago, so I figured it's high time I put something together that I can just link to.

Yeah, right. Write a 20 page paper to prove that it is raining, when everybody can see that the sun is shining.

[_zerinus]

Please demonstrate your assertion.

Already have.

[_spotlight]

Please demonstrate your assertion.

Already have.

I only just read about this myself, thank you MsJack, so my investigation is no better than yours Z, but it is coming up with a different result.

David Jones, in his article on the CBMW website, states that Origen also referred to Junias as a male. In fact, it is only in a 12th century manuscript of Rufinus’ Latin paraphrase of Origen’s commentary on Romans, that the variant Junias is found. In the critical text for Rufinus, the conclusion is that Rufinus had used the feminine, as is found in the majority of the copies of his work.

http://www.michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedB ... Carthy.pdf

[_zerinus]

I only just read about this myself, thank you MsJack, so my investigation is no better than yours Z, but it is coming up with a different result.

David Jones, in his article on the CBMW website, states that Origen also referred to Junias as a male. In fact, it is only in a 12th century manuscript of Rufinus’ Latin paraphrase of Origen’s commentary on Romans, that the variant Junias is found. In the critical text for Rufinus, the conclusion is that Rufinus had used the feminine, as is found in the majority of the copies of his work.

http://www.michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/Junia%20S%20McCarthy.pdf

You are going out of context. I was responding to what MsJack herself had posted. This is a conversation between me and her. I cannot respond to 1001 different opinions that may have been expressed by 1001 different people on this subject.

[_spotlight]

You are going out of context. I was responding to what MsJack herself had posted. This is a conversation between me and her. I cannot respond to 1001 different opinions that may have been expressed on the subject by 1001 different people on this subject.

My apologies. It has been a while since I have worn my apologetic blinders. I have forgotten the necessity of narrow focus in winning apologetic points in an argument.

[_Lemmie]

You are going out of context. I was responding to what MsJack herself had posted. This is a conversation between me and her. I cannot respond to 1001 different opinions that may have been expressed on the subject by 1001 different people on this subject.

My apologies. It has been a while since I have worn my apologetic blinders. I have forgotten the necessity of narrow focus in winning apologetic points in an argument.

Zerinus roundly lost his apologetic battle several pages back, but for some reason is trying to re-live his embarrassment, so I just wanted to note that other readers have no problem with your wider focus.

[_MsJack]

I was typing fast. I meant to say woman.

I know what you meant to say, but I thought it would be nice to let you get things right for a change.

Write a 20 page paper

The article that you linked to me from CARM (which you expected me to read) was about 2000 words. Every single one of my posts on this thread have been far, far less than that. My blog post: 1967 words without endnotes, 2308 words with them.

Conclusion: if you can read CARM, you can read me. Stop whining about length.

And spotlight is correct. The claim that Origen called Junia a man comes from two minor 12th century manuscripts which have "Junia" as masculine. All earlier, better manuscripts of Origen and all quotations of Origen from other commentators have "Junia" as feminine. I covered this with you on p. 1-2 of this thread.

There is no reason to think Origen indicated a man. None.

[_zerinus]

There is no reason to think Origen indicated a man. None.

There is every “reason to think Origen indicated a man”. In the passage you quoted, he is entertaining the possibility that Junia might have been one of the Seventies; and he knows that the Seventies were men, not women.

[_Polygamy-Porter]

Why is this disappointing to you?

Do you desire to return to faithful weekly attendance of LDS services?

Return? I've never been Mormon, and even when I was married to one, I attended monthly, not weekly.

It's disappointing to me because, as Martin Luther King, Jr. would say, "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Churches that silence women's voices reinforce each other and affect the rest of us.

Besides, I still have many friends in the Mormon church who care about this issue, and I empathize with them. There was a good post on this at By Common Consent: https://bycommonconsent.com/2017/04/03/ ... the-women/

I don't get it.

You are a never mo, once married to a mo, now divorced. Ok, I get that.

You do not believe in the LDS theology, and will never.

Yet, you come here and complain about the religion and hope it will change, for the benefit of your friends who happen to be TBMs.

Is it just me, or would you be better off with non Mormon friends?

[_MsJack]

There is every “reason to think Origen indicated a man”. In the passage you quoted, he is entertaining the possibility that Junia might have been one of the Seventies; and he knows that the Seventies were men, not women.

You are putting the cart before the horse. There is nothing in the Bible to indicate that the seventy (though Origen says they were Seventy-Two) were men only. The word for "others" in Luke 10 is masculine plural, but that doesn't tell us much because the masculine plural in Greek is potentially gender-inclusive. Had there been 71 women and 1 man in the group, the text still would have used the masculine plural because that's how Greek works. Jesus had numerous prominent female disciples who traveled with him and would have been needed to access situations that men couldn't easily access, so there's no reason to assume that every member of the seventy-two was male.

You keep on saying that I'm denying something as clear as a sunny day; well, ask any first-year Latin student whether the name "Junia" is masculine or feminine. They would tell you that "Junia" is the form for women in the Roman gens "Junia" and that men in the family would have used "Junius," not "Junia." When the Origin manuscript refers to Iunia / Iuniam / Iunia (nominative / accusative / ablative), we can be sure that he's talking about a woman and not a man.

Basically, this woman's name sounded every bit as feminine to ancient readers as "Jennifer" or "Stephanie" would sound in our day and age, yet you insist it was a man (!).

In any case, you started this thread claiming that Jesus made no women apostles nor members of the seventy. I have provided you with a biblical example of a female apostle and a very early reference from a Church Father saying this same woman was a member of the seventy(-two). I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make him think.

Polygamy Porter ~ I don't think I can explain it better than I have. Rest assured that I have plenty of non-Mormon friends. There are other never-Mormons on this forum (Chap, EAllusion, Quasimodo, I think) who complain about Mormonism and were never even married to Mormons, so I'm not sure why I'm noteworthy.