Mind blown, learning of women apostles for the first time.

[CV75]

17 hours ago, manol said:

"Thunder Perfect Mind" is part of my personal canon (and for the most part the Pauline epistles are not).

Imo there are texts which teach great principles and enlighten the reader's understanding, and there are texts which lift the reader to a higher spiritual energy level even if the exact meanings are elusive, sort of like listening to beautiful songs sung in a foreign language.  "Thunder Perfect Mind" falls into the latter category for me; I read it for the elevation of my spirit rather than for the education of my logical mind.

The first few stanzas, from Anne McGuire's translation:

Thunder Perfect Mind

I was sent from the Power
And I have come to those who think upon me. 
And I was found among those who seek after me.

Look at me, you who think upon me;  
And you hearers, hear me! 
You who are waiting for me, take me to yourselves. 
And do not pursue me from your vision. 
And do not make your sound hate me, nor your hearing. 
Do not be ignorant of me at any place or any time. 
Be on guard! 
Do not be ignorant of me. 

For I am the first and the last. 
I am the honored and the scorned, 
I am the harlot and the holy one.
I am the wife and the virgin. 
I am the mother and the daughter.
I am the members of my mother. 

I am the barren one and the one with many children. 
I am she whose marriage is multiple, and I have not taken a husband. 
I am the midwife and she who does not give birth. 
I am the comforting of my labor pains.

I am the bride and the bridegroom.
It is my husband who begot me.
I am the mother of my father and the sister of my husband.
And he is my offspring.
I am the servant of him who prepared me and I am the lord of my offspring.
But he is the one who begot me before time on a day of birth and he is my offspring in time, and my power is from him.
I am the staff of his power in his youth and he is the rod of my old age. 
And whatever he wills happens to me.

I am the incomprehensible silence and the much-remembered thought.
I am the voice of many sounds and the logos of many forms. 
I am the utterance of my name.

*  *  *  *

In my opinion Joseph Smith was moving in the direction of women being openly acknowledged as Priestesses when he was killed.  Women were already blessing and healing the sick.  Joseph Smith's journal entry of April 28, 1842, includes his preface to Eliza R. Snow's notes from the talk he gave to the Relief Society on that date (from History of the Church, Volume 4, Page 602), emphasis mine:

"At two o'clock I met the members of the "Female Relief Society," and after presiding at the admission of many new members, gave a lecture on the Priesthood, showing how the sisters would come in POSSESSION of the privileges, blessings and gifts OF THE PRIESTHOOD, and that the signs should follow them, such as healing the sick, casting out devils, &c., and that they might attain unto these blessings by a virtuous life, and conversation, and diligence in keeping all the commandments; a synopsis of which was reported by Miss Eliza R. Snow, as follows..."

The text of Eliza's notes can be found in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith starting on page 223, but the foregoing preface from Joseph Smith's journal, which indicates his intention, is missing.  Ignore the section headings in TPJS; they are not part of Eliza's notes. 

In my opinion the Endowment Ceremony indicates that women are ALREADY Priestesses, no ordination needed. 

Yes, through temple covenants women can be P/priestesses without ordination. If this means the New Testament text suggests Junia was endowed, 3 cheers for the Restoration! But I think it more suggests that the Restoration took place irrespective of biblical texts.

[manol]

4 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Yes, through temple covenants women can be P/priestesses without ordination.

To the best of my knowledge there is nothing in the Endowment Ceremony or before that we know of which obviously bestows Priestesshood on women. 

And yet the garment they wear (think of its name), the robe they wear (think of its name), the ordinances they perform (think of the names of things), and last but not least the claim or affirmation they make at the Veil (think of the wording), all the same as the male Priesthood holders, all indicate they are already Priestesses.  Just as this would all be completely out of place for a male who is not already a Priesthood holder, likewise it would all be out of place for a female who is not already a Priestess.

In my opinion.

[Tacenda]

16 hours ago, CV75 said:

Using the old-fashioned/testament meaning, women are given an apostleship when they are sent out as missionaries. This is apostleship without priesthood office, but with priesthood power. But we call them missionaries, just as we do the young male missionaries who have the office of Elder. I think Joseph Smith started correcting the errors in the Bible (perhaps more accurately, our understanding of the Bible), and God started correcting the loss of priesthood power, authority and understanding. 

Thanks for the information, didn't think about the sister missionaries. You're so right.

I'd like this mainly, I'd like the world to see that women aren't to be silenced, as some scriptures mention in the Bible. I want the women that were considered apostles or prophetesses to be highlighted not erased in some cases. In the Bible it does a lot of harm and in some men's minds women aren't equal. In fact many are saying it out loud, I can name a few in the news and especially in the Evangelical churches and their chosen politicians. 

It's like they think women are too powerful now, so they need to demean them. I am not advocating for the Priesthood, never have never would. Just don't want harm to women because of things said in the Bible, and those that believe it word for word. And if there have been instances of the women in the Bible not being represented I think that's darn near evil. 

[Tacenda]

17 hours ago, The Nehor said:

If it was a clear-cut case on Junia just being a regular messenger then why did those who transcribed the Bible butcher her name to be masculine? You don’t try to cover something up if you think it is innocuous.

Exactly!

[Rain]

On 12/20/2025 at 11:13 AM, Tacenda said:

Thanks for the information, didn't think about the sister missionaries. You're so right.

I'd like this mainly, I'd like the world to see that women aren't to be silenced, as some scriptures mention in the Bible. I want the women that were considered apostles or prophetesses to be highlighted not erased in some cases. In the Bible it does a lot of harm and in some men's minds women aren't equal. In fact many are saying it out loud, I can name a few in the news and especially in the Evangelical churches and their chosen politicians. 

It's like they think women are too powerful now, so they need to demean them. I am not advocating for the Priesthood, never have never would. Just don't want harm to women because of things said in the Bible, and those that believe it word for word. And if there have been instances of the women in the Bible not being represented I think that's darn near evil. 

I think the apostle idea and missionaries only works if elder missionaries are working the same way as sisters, but it doesn't.   Here are some differences:

● Elders are called by their priesthood office (Elder Smith). Sisters are called by their church membership (Sister Smith - all women members are called "Sister" whether they have been endowed or not, on a mission or not.)

 ● No woman ever baptizes, confirms or ordains the people they have taught like the elders do

● When sisters are put in leadership positions it is never over men.  Elders in leadership positions are always over women if women are in that group.

● In the New Testement apostles went out to teach, but others who were not called apostles went out as well.  Going out to teach didn't make the others an apostle. There was something more to being an apostle. 

 

Edited December 22, 2025 by Rain

[CV75]

3 hours ago, manol said:

To the best of my knowledge there is nothing in the Endowment Ceremony or before that we know of which obviously bestows Priestesshood on women. 

And yet the garment they wear (think of its name), the robe they wear (think of its name), the ordinances they perform (think of the names of things), and last but not least the claim or affirmation they make at the Veil (think of the wording), all the same as the male Priesthood holders, all indicate they are already Priestesses.  Just as this would all be completely out of place for a male who is not already a Priesthood holder, likewise it would all be out of place for a female who is not already a Priestess.

In my opinion.

That's a fine opinion in my opinion, and no ordination is involved, but there is a particular ordinance no matter what things are called.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Thanks for the information, didn't think about the sister missionaries. You're so right.

I'd like this mainly, I'd like the world to see that women aren't to be silenced, as some scriptures mention in the Bible. I want the women that were considered apostles or prophetesses to be highlighted not erased in some cases. In the Bible it does a lot of harm and in some men's minds women aren't equal. In fact many are saying it out loud, I can name a few in the news and especially in the Evangelical churches and their chosen politicians. 

It's like they think women are too powerful now, so they need to demean them. I am not advocating for the Priesthood, never have never would. Just don't want harm to women because of things said in the Bible, and those that believe it word for word. And if there have been instances of the women in the Bible not being represented I think that's darn near evil. 

Do the instances of women in the Bible not being represented outweigh (whether numerically or harmfully) the instances in which they are represented? I'm sure there is a debate in there somewhere. Women are both silenced and highlighted with or without examples and instructions from the Bible, so the root cause seems to be deeper than that; the Bible is but a mirror of the writers, compilers and users, for better when inspired and for worse when political. I think what you are getting at has to do with building Zion along the lines of the Restored Gospel.

[rpn]

The only thing that makes sense to me is that Mary Magdalene was Jesus' wife.   There is no other explanation for Him visiting her first. before declaring Himself to His apostles.    But I don't see that He had female ordained.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

 

● When sisters are put in leadership positions it is never over men.  Elders in leadership positions are always over women if women are in that group.

 

 

Just wanted to clarify that this is true except in primary. The primary presidency is always women and they are over all the male primary teachers in their ward.

Elders are never over women in a ward unless an elder is called as a ward mission leader or in a Sunday school presidency.  A male is always over females, but that male is rarely an elder. Most of the time it’s a high priest. 

[The Nehor]

45 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Do the instances of women in the Bible not being represented outweigh (whether numerically or harmfully) the instances in which they are represented?

I would say yes.

It is also worth noting that the two books in the Bible that are named after women (Ruch and Esther) both involve the women using their beauty and seduction to win the day. Seriously if you read all the innuendos and sex party antics of the book of Esther with any imagination it makes the Song of Songs look chaste and demure by comparison.

That theme of women using their sexuality in a kind of sacred seduction runs through most of the Old Testament. Tamar, Rahab, Queen of Sheba, and a lot more. You also have the more infernal seductresses like Delilah and Jezebel (the one with all the priests to Yahweh’s wife Asherah).

It largely reduces women to these roles. There are exceptions but not a lot of them. Devorah/Deborah is probably one of the standouts here.

Edited December 20, 2025 by The Nehor

[Rain]

40 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Just wanted to clarify that this is true except in primary. The primary presidency is always women and they are over all the male primary teachers in their ward.

Elders are never over women in a ward unless an elder is called as a ward mission leader or in a Sunday school presidency.  A male is always over females, but that male is rarely an elder. Most of the time it’s a high priest. 

Yes, I was talking specifically about missionaries.

[CV75]

57 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I would say yes.

It is also worth noting that the two books in the Bible that are named after women (Ruch and Esther) both involve the women using their beauty and seduction to win the day. Seriously if you read all the innuendos and sex party antics of the book of Esther with any imagination it makes the Song of Songs look chaste and demure by comparison.

That theme of women using their sexuality in a kind of sacred seduction runs through most of the Old Testament. Tamar, Rahab, Queen of Sheba, and a lot more. You also have the more infernal seductresses like Delilah and Jezebel (the one with all the priests to Yahweh’s wife Asherah).

It largely reduces women to these roles. There are exceptions but not a lot of them. Devorah/Deborah is probably one of the standouts here.

You have a dirty mind.  

Edited December 20, 2025 by CV75

[Calm]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Do the instances of women in the Bible not being represented outweigh (whether numerically or harmfully) the instances in which they are represented?

That would depend on the individual and the culture using the text and what they value, so in many cases historically speaking the answer is a definite yes.

Edited December 20, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, rpn said:

There is no other explanation for Him visiting her first. before declaring Himself to His apostles. 

1) Unless he was just waiting for a truly sincere believer with a mind open to receiving him to come to the Garden to announce his resurrection and she was the first.  It was perhaps important to appear first in the Garden to make a direct connection to the Tomb for symbolic reasons or to help combat the naysayers by making a more progressive, step by step type of story.

2) There were other women with Mary at the Tomb originally, so he could have appeared to the group assuming they were all sincere believers, but perhaps he wished to comfort Mary as she was exceptionally heartbroken and he needed her to be in a different frame of mind because he had work for her to do.

3) He needed someone to witness to the apostles to prepare them to see him (perhaps their minds were in such a state of confusion they were not receptive to the Spirit that was needed) and Mary was on her way to tell them the Tomb was empty

4) it does seem likely there was a special relationship between the two and given the culture that seems most likely to be either mother (a position already taken) or wife.

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

You have a dirty mind

Have you read Esther, the Old Testament, or studied those cultures?

No dirt needs to be added to get there.

Edited December 20, 2025 by Calm

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

You have a dirty mind.  

Which is how I recognize the writer of Esther did. Game recognizes game.

[Clear]

1)  IN KOINE, ANYONE WHO IS SENT ON ANY SORT OF ERRAND IS AN "APOSTLE", IT IS NOT SPECIFICALLY, A "RELIGIOUS WORD". 

CV75 said: “Using the old-fashioned/testament meaning, women are given an apostleship when they are sent out as missionaries.”

Exactly!  If you simply google “What is the Greek word for “missionary”, Google A.I. will return the following:
The Greek word most closely related to "missionary" is apostolos (ἀπόστολος), meaning "one who is sent" or "messenger," from the verb apostello (to send).

While "missionary" comes from Latin (missio), the concept in the New Testament is captured by apostolos, referring to people sent on a divine mission…”

Google A.I. also points out that a religious missionary/apostle is called “ier-apostolos (ιερ-απόστολος)  (which refers to a “holy” messenger to distinguish their errand from say, an errand boy (or girl) who is an “apostle” by virtue of being sent to the store by their mom.

As I pointed out, to distinguish a religious apostle from any other type of apostle, one must add more context (as I and Google A.I. have pointed out multiple times).   

 

2) THE LITERARY DISCUSSION IS SIMPLE, HISTORICAL, AND CLEAR.   THE IDEOLOGICALLY DRIVEN  DISCUSSION IS, WELL, IDEOLOGICAL, SINCE IT IS NOT PARTICULARLY HISTORICAL NOR LINGUISTIC

CV75 said: “As far as I can tell, her exact status continues to be debated in scholarly discussion (whether she had the conferral of priesthood keys, or was simply well-regarded by those who did). I don't see the best discussion on this point as ideological at all.

If, the discussion is simply based on the ancient use of the base word αποστολος, then, the usage is clear, it is simply someone who is “sent”.

If the discussion is based on conjecture and speculation (unless SOMEONE want to actually offer supporting data), then the value of such a theory has little value without supporting historical or linguistic data and remains in the realm of speculation.

 

 

3) THE OVERZEALOUS IDEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION VERSUS THE LOGICAL DATA DRIVEN LINGUISTIC DISCUSSION

CV75: “Some few of these scholars certainly look overly zealous (cray-cray?) and sound disappointingly ideological, though.”  

I agree.  While the Meaning of the Greek word is easily confirmed, the wild interpretation and bizarre re-definition and usage of the greek term seems to be completely ideological without rational data (so far).  

The Strange, data-less, assumptions to support this theory is (so far) not merely “cray-cray”, but it is “coo coo bananas”.  Since it is not based on actual historical data, but a series of multiple assumptions, I assume (currently) that some other motivation underlies the desire to create controversy (youtube clicks?).

 

 

4)  OUR RELIGIOUS BIAS AFFECTS AND ADDS CONTEXTUAL MEANING TO WHAT WE READ

The Nehor said: “The scholars are not discussing whether Junia had Priesthood Keys. That is an LDS concept that doesn’t appear in the New Testament or the early Christian Church in any equivalent sense.”

I agree that personal and religious concepts / ideology that is deficient in its knowledge of Greek usage of the word “αποστολος” seem to be coloring this discussion. 

It is perfectly fine for Junia or anyone else who is “sent” to be properly called an “apostle” in Greek.  

I am not sure why there is an ideological driven reason to misuse this simple Greek word.  I don’t understand what value, REAL value, is there in trying to create a non-existent controversy?

 

 

5)  Nehor said: “If it was a clear-cut case on Junia just being a regular messenger then why did those who transcribed the Bible butcher her name to be masculine? 

The Nehor clarified: “The name was altered to make it masculine in the Medieval Period despite a long history of the name being feminine.”

Nehor, thank you so much for the clarification.  While I am unaware of any significant Greek manuscript variant that does this, my present tentative is that translator bias was involved.   

 

 

6) ASKING SEEKINGUNDERSTANDING FOR CLARIFICATION ON HIS CLAIMS

Seeking understanding said: “I mean Paul called Junia as a prominent  “Apostle” in the same sense that Paul calls himself an “Apostle.”

Clear replied: "You're making three specific claims I've not seen, can you clarify them?

1)  you claim "Paul CALLED Junia".  

Can you clarify what you mean by Paul “called” Junia.  What do you mean by "call".   Simply "asking", a formal calling or ordination or some sort of religious rite of some sort?

It is important that you clarify what you mean by this claim.

 “SeekingUnderstanding replied: Paul referred to Junia and Andronicus as Apostles   (called them apostles) in the same sense of the word as when he called himself an apostle. “

Yes, you said this before.  What, specifically did you MEAN by this claim was the question you were supposed to answer.

 

 

7) ANSWERING A QUESTION IS BETTER THAN DEFLECTION IN EFFICIENT COMMUNICATION

Clear asked Seeking Understanding:  2) You claim she was called "as a PROMINENT "Apostle"'

Can you then clarify what you mean by your additional claim that she was a “prominent apostle”.    What MAKES her a "prominent apostle" in your mind?

Are you saying Paul simply mentioning Junia makes her "prominent" or are you referring to something she did to make her "prominent"?

SeekingUnderstanding replied:” This is the wrong question.

And yet, that is the actual question you were asked.   Are you willing to respond with clarification?

 

 

REGARDING SEEKINGUNDERSTANDINGS CLAIM THAT JUNIAN WAS A "PROMINENT" APOSTLE

SeekingUnderstanding said: “Um, I’m saying Paul calling them “of note” or “prominent” makes them prominent.”

OOOookay.  She was mentioned by Paul as being “of note” and thus “received” (επισημοι) by or among those who were “sent out”.   Is there ANYTHING ELSE that makes her “prominent”?

 

9) REGARDING THE CLAIM THAT JUNIAN WAS AN APOSTLE "IN THE SAME SENSE THAT PAUL CALLS HIMSELF AN "APOSTLE"

Clear asked SeekingUnderstanding: "When you say she was an apostle "in the same sense that Paul called himself an "Apostle", what do you mean by this claim?

 Was she simply asked by Paul “to go with them”, or are you saying Junia had a “vision” as Paul did and was “sent” by Jesus in this way, or what do you mean that Paul “called” Junia?

If you mean Paul actually “called” Junia, where does the text give you a description of this?

Can you find a translation of the Bible that distinguishes the kind of apostle Paul was and the kind of Apostle Junia was? 

SeekingUnderstanding replied: Can you find a translation of the Bible that distinguishes the kind of apostle Paul was and the kind of Apostle Junia was? 

No, I cannot think of a single biblical source text that supports your claim.  Not a single one.

That is why I asked YOU why YOU think she was called an apostle “IN THE SAME SENSE THAT PAUL CALLS HIMSELF AN APOSTLE”. 

IF, you now admit that you are not basing your claim on a biblical text, what actual data are you basing your claim on?

 

 

10) Clear said: “7) THERE IS NO NEED TO BECOME ANGRY OR DEMANDING. WE ARE SIMPLY TALKING ABOUT THE ANCIENT KOINE GREEK USAGE OF A SINGLE WORD

THE LDS PARADIGM AND ANCIENT PARADIGM DOESN'T CHANGE WHETHER THE WORD IS USED ON A FEMALE OR A MAN OR A 9 YEAR OLD "APOSTLE"  IF WE ARE USING ANCIENT KOINE GREEK

Seekingunderstanding said: regarding Greek: “Please educate me! “

Clear responded: Seeking, try to be at peace… World peace does not depend on whether this theory of yours is correct or incorrect. 

We are simply talking about the Usage of a single word, αποστολος and it’s very simple and very basic meaning to the ancient greeks who used the term.”

SeekingUnderstanding replied: “So you have no training in the understanding of 1st century CE Greek. Who could have guessed?”

Ad hominems are not helpful nor are they a replacement for actual, reasoned, data or logic.

It makes no logical sense (to me) for you to keep coming to conclusions without adequate data. 

I don’t understand what motive you have to come to logical conclusions without sufficient data?     

 

11) THE OBVIOIUS REASON ENGLISH RENDERS GREEK "APOSTLOS" AS "APOSTLE" IN ENGLISH

SeekingUnderstanding said: “Maybe spend sometime pondering why not a single biblical translation renders the term ‘sent’ in this specific verse? 

The English word “apostle” IS the correct word that best correlates with the Greek word “αποστολος”.   

“The one sent” is a description of the meaning of the word apostle just as a dictionary describes the meaning of a base word.  The proper word IS “apostle”.  

IF you do not trust google A.I. as I suggested readers try, perhaps you can find someone you trust who reads Greek to help you with this principle?

You don’t seem this dense or unintelligent SeekingUnderstanding.   Can you describe what your motive is to deny the meaning of this simple Greek word? 

Why dispute data that other readers (and you) can so easily obtain regarding the meaning and usage of this simple and single, Greek, word?

 

12) THE SEX OR AGE IS IRRELEVANT TO THE PRINCIPLE OF BEING "SENT".   ANYONE CAN BE "SENT" 

SeekingUnderstanding said: “…ask yourself if you would be disputing any of this if it was Junias instead of Junia. “

This is yet another bizarre and illogical assumption.   

It is irrelevant whether a person "sent" is male or female, adult or child, theist or atheist.   Anyone, regardless of sex, can be “sent” for an errand.  Such persons, are, in Greek, an “apostle” since the word simply indicates a person who is sent.

Thus, there is no literary argument at all. 

The claim you offer seems (to me) to be ideological rather than logical or linguistic.  The problem is that this ideology doesn’t work given the text we have, unless one changes the meaning of the Greek word αποστολοσ.  

Ideology, not linguistics, seems to underlie your claim that Junian Ιουνιαν was “called” an apostle “IN THE SAME SENSE THAT PAUL CALLS HIMSELF AN "APOSTLE" as per your claim (which, I remind you, you still have not clarified…)

If you don’t actually have any data that supports your theory, I think you should give it up or seek for actual DATA to support it.  

What is the value and motive for starting a non-existent controversy?

 

13) THE MEANING OF THE GREEK WORD IS NOT IDEOLOGICAL.   THE ATTEMPT TO RE-DEFININE AND ADD CHARACTERISTICS TO THE GREEK WORD IS IDEOLOGICALLY DRIVEN.

CV75 said: “I still don't see the best discussion on this point as ideological at all (and some scholars do discuss whether she had keys  https://people.brandeis.edu/~brooten/Articles/Junia_Outstanding_among_Apostles.pdf )”

Thank you, the link points to Bernadette Brootens three page presentation where she claims: “we must assume that Paul recognized others as apostles only when he was convinced that their own apostolic charge had come from the risen Lord (cf. 1 Cor 15:7: the risen Lord was seen by all the apostles).”

But Bernadettes claim rests on the assumption that Junian “must have seen the risen Lord”.   Where do we find support for this claim in the actual biblical text or early Judeo-Christian historical literature?.

Where is there biblical or early textual evidence that Junian saw the risen Lord and was the type of apostle that the 12 apostles were?

 

Bernadetter further tells us what we “can assume”, saying “…from Pauls description of his own apostolic work in his letters, we can assume that the apostles Junia and Andronicus were persons of great authority…”

Again, where is the actual data to support this additional and unusual assumption that they were not only “Prominent” (per SeekingUnderstanding), but "of  great authority”?  

Where does the text tell us they had "great authority"?  HAS ANY READER SEEN ACTUAL SUPPORTING DATA UNDERLYING THIS ASSUMPTION?

 

Bernadette tells us we can assume “…that they were probably missionaries and founders of churches”.

While it is not difficult to imagine them as missionaries, one must ask, what actual data gives us the right to assume additionally that they were “founders of churches”?  What churches?  Where does any evidence exist for these additional “assumptions”?

 

Bernadette tells us further, that we may assume “…that, just as with Paul, their apostleship had begun with a vision of the risen Lord and the charge to become apostles of Christ.”

As with all other unusual “assumptions”, where is the actual data to support the assumption that Christ appeared to Junian?     Bernadette is making many, many assumptions Bernadette and telling us we can make the same assumptions, but where is the actual data that allows us to make so many non-historical assumptions?  

I think that these unusual assumptions can exist in the theoretical and dogmatic worlds, they die immediately in the world of actual religious history.

 

In any case CV75, The  Nehor, and Seeking Understanding, I hope your own spiritual journeys are wonderful and enlighterning.    I would be interested to know if any of you find any actual historical DATA to support this historical claim.

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, Clear said:

Google A.I. also points out

Google AI is unlikely to understand the nuances of Biblical Greek and other ancient languages.  It has enough of an issue with modern language (there is a massive reason why AI should never be used for therapy and that is because it misses nuances like sarcasm, downplaying, dismissiveness, etc and also accepts biases/stigma as standards).

https://hai.stanford.edu/news/exploring-the-dangers-of-ai-in-mental-health-care

[rpn]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

) Unless he was just waiting for a truly sincere believer with a mind open to receiving him to come to the Garden to announce his resurrection and she was the first.  It was perhaps important to appear first in the Garden to make a direct connection to the Tomb for symbolic reasons or to help combat the naysayers by making a more progressive, step by step type of story.

There is an order in heaven and spouses come before apostles.   And only spouses come before spouses.

[Calm]

8 hours ago, rpn said:

There is an order in heaven and spouses come before apostles.   And only spouses come before spouses.

And where is this spoken of and does this apply to any or even all mortality?

Because I know of some bishop’s wives and family who might see it as God is practical when it’s necessary rather than insistent that a certain order always be followed no matter what.

Edited December 21, 2025 by Calm

[Clear]

 

1) REGARDING THE ANCIENT DEFINITION AND USAGE OF THE BASE GREEK WORD "APOSTLE" - ΑΠΟΣΤΟΛΟΣ

Calm said: "Google AI is unlikely to understand the nuances of Biblical Greek and other ancient languages.  It has enough of an issue with modern language (there is a massive reason why AI should never be used for therapy and that is because it misses nuances like sarcasm, downplaying, dismissiveness, etc and also accepts biases/stigma as standards)."

 

I agree that A.I. is frequently NOT particularly accurate (especially when it comes to specific historical literature).

HOWEVER, the simple definition of the base word "Apostolos" is not a "nuance".  The words has been standard greek for over a millennia and the definition even in modern greek is the same. 

Is there some reason you believe all greek lexicons are incorrect?

 

2) WHAT IS THE MOTIVE TO ARGUE AGAINST A FACT THAT ANYONE CAN CONFIRM IN 30 SECONDS WITH A STANDARD GREEK LEXICON

I do not understand the motive for arguing against the obvious and simple definition of  the greek word αποστολοσ, especially since one can simply look up the definition in any greek lectionary.   

Why argue against fact and logic and multiple examples of usage when you or ANYONE else can simply look the word up for yourself in 30 seconds?

What will happen to ones credibility when they argue against a fact that ANYONE can confirm with ANY greek dictionary or lexicon?

What is worth losing one's credibility, or what do you get out of such an argument when it means loss of credibility?

 

3) ANYONE CAN QUICKLY LOOK UP THE BASE MEANING OF THE GREEK WORD "APOSTLE" AND SEE WHETHER YOUR ARGUMENT HAS ANY CREDIBILILITY.

Calm - simply look up the definition of the greek word apostolos or ask ANY lexicon what the greek word is for "one who is sent".    

Then ask Google A.I. and see if the answer is the same.

Tell readers both your source and what the word means.

If you do not have an actual greek lexicon (I assume this since you do not have seemed to have looked up the base definition)

You can not only try A.I. or Google (or either one), 

You can seek the Bill Mounce dictionary (he's a famous instructor of biblical greek)

You can check the "free bible commentary" for the definition.

You can check strongs commentary.

You can check Thayers lexicon.

You can check wikipedias defintion

you can check the Greek λογειον lexicon.

You could have checked ANY modern Greek lexicon.

I don't understand why you've argued against the definition without looking up the base meaning in any lexicon or dictionary so far.

 

4) IF YOU TOOK THE TIME TO CHECK THE DEFINITION OF APOSTLE, WHAT WAS THE MOTIVATION TO ARGUE AGAINST IT'S MEANING?

 

 

 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Clear said:

the simple definition

Red flag alert.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Clear said:

Is there some reason you believe all greek lexicons are incorrect?

More like I believe all dictionaries, lexicons, and anything else that tries to summarize the meanings of words in any language to be incomplete. They are limited by the expansive nature of language, especially languages/cultures that rich in symbolism and possible shadings to words, used by those who excel at storytelling (and there were a number of excellent Greek storytellers and poets, which means they likely had fun with words) who apparently liked a lot of wordplay, including using words with multiple layers of meaning or using words in ways that reverse their meaning (“the last shall be first”).  Some authors enjoyed making readers work for it. (I had a great AP English teacher in high school and took a Greek literature course in college as I loved reading Greek storytellers because of the mythology.)

I don’t know much about Greek itself having only read translations, it may be the driest, most uncreative and precise language out there and it’s only the interpreters who have actually played with it, but somehow I doubt it.

I do know about English and how the simple things in it often just aren’t.

Did you know that the very “simple” word run is seen as one of the most semantically complex words in the English language by some because it has so many distinct meanings, over 60 core meanings and hundreds if one counts idioms and phrases it is used in (like runout, runoff, run-in, run-over).  It is also quite flexible when it comes to grammar, playing all sorts of roles, different types of verbs, nouns, modifiers.

You know some other highly complex “simple words”?  Get, take, set, go, make….

The word set hold the record for most definitions at around 439 distinct senses.

Edited December 21, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

10 hours ago, Clear said:

If, the discussion is simply based on the ancient use of the base word αποστολος, then, the usage is clear, it is simply someone who is “sent”.

Since you told me to appeal to AI, here is what it told me when I asked it about the usage of apostle in general and the context around it being used for Junia specifically.

It’s not quite “simply”, the term holds the nuance of being sent with delegated authority, the authority being of the sender (AI is so helpful   ).  In the case of Junia as with the other apostles, that would be Christ.

Quote

As I pointed out, to distinguish a religious apostle from any other type of apostle, one must add more context (as I and Google A.I. have pointed out multiple times).

And we have the context of Paul calling her and Andronicus his fellow prisoners (or captives together), meaning they are imprisoned for the same reason Paul is, having been sent by Christ on an apostolic mission.  Paul uses the ‘together’ term in other cases as well for shared, bonded suffering for Christ.  He even mentions they were in Christ before him, underlining the context and that their position is a religious one.  Paul also refers to imprisonment in other places as evidence of a credential, authorized ministry.

Quote

REGARDING THE CLAIM THAT JUNIAN WAS AN APOSTLE "IN THE SAME SENSE THAT PAUL CALLS HIMSELF AN "APOSTLE"

Again Paul calls Junia his fellow prisoner, indicating they are there in prison for the same reason.  And his use of “in Christ before me” likely refers to an apostolic commission just as mentioning “notable among the apostles” at the same time links their imprisonment to the apostolic commission.

As far as “among the apostles”, apparently Paul has the habit of clarifying when he doesn’t mean one of the outstanding apostles and only means ‘well known to the apostles’. 

Quote

We are simply talking about the Usage of a single word, αποστολος and it’s very simple and very basic meaning to the ancient greeks who used the term

And this is problematic if you believe the word can be treated as unrelated to the context Paul presents it in:

1) among the apostles, not clarified to mean well known, therefore meaning of the apostles

2) fellow prisoners…imprisoned with Paul because she was on the same commission, sent by Christ

3) in Christ before…meaning commissioned as an apostle by Christ before Paul

[CV75]

17 hours ago, Calm said:

That would depend on the individual and the culture using the text and what they value, so in many cases historically speaking the answer is a definite yes.

So, if we know that instances are left out, we are not dependent on the Bible to see how important women are or how we treat them. This is why I think people use the Bible (as with texts of other religious traditions) to justify their habits; the people came first.