My question was what your basis was that she dd not believe, as she goes on to preach to the disciples what it was that she had seen and professed the resurrection to the disciples. This Biblical account itself shows her belief; the personal musings, then, refer to your line that "she spoke with Jesus and still she could not believe.
The fact that she wanted to touch Him to make sure that she was talking to a real person and not a ghost. This happened AFTER He called her by name and she recognizing Him. So, even though she recognized His voice, saw Him, spoke with Him, saw the empty tomb, heard the angels proclaiming the resurrection, she still did not believe and wanted to touh Him.
But then He did not allow her to touch Him to elevate her mind from the belief of senses and told her to go and preach his disciples.
On a separate, yet more general, note: if claims are to be made in any thread, they should be substantiated by the collective understanding of our Church Fathers. Personal musings are just that and we must be careful not to present them as the belief of the Orthodox Church as a whole, lest we teach something wrongly and misguide the youth.
I agree with you when it comes to presenting the dogmas, but it should not limit us from contemplation and meditation in the word of God as long as we are not twisting the facts to fit our own desires.
On a separate, yet more general, note: if claims are to be made in any thread, they should be substantiated by the collective understanding of our Church Fathers. Personal musings are just that and we must be careful not to present them as the belief of the Orthodox Church as a whole, lest we teach something wrongly and misguide the youth.
I agree with you when it comes to presenting the dogmas, but it should not limit us from contemplation and meditation in the word of God as long as we are not twisting the facts to fit our own desires.
As long as you make it clear that it is a personal contemplation.
My question was what your basis was that she dd not believe, as she goes on to preach to the disciples what it was that she had seen and professed the resurrection to the disciples. This Biblical account itself shows her belief; the personal musings, then, refer to your line that "she spoke with Jesus and still she could not believe.
The fact that she wanted to touch Him to make sure that she was talking to a real person and not a ghost. This happened AFTER He called her by name and she recognizing Him. So, even though she recognized His voice, saw Him, spoke with Him, saw the empty tomb, heard the angels proclaiming the resurrection, she still did not believe and wanted to touh Him.
But then He did not allow her to touch Him to elevate her mind from the belief of senses and told her to go and preach his disciples.
imikhail,
My dear brother, I hope that you find no offense in my posting in response to your words. I just wish to clarify things in order that we all may benefit with one another in this season of the Holy Fifty Days.
You comment that she still thought Him to be a ghost, and thus did not believe, and still "wanted to touch him." Perhaps we can examine what the Fathers say about the disciples in their recognition of Christ when He appeared to them the first time. The following is a commentary written by St. Cyril of Alexandria (which I made reference to a few posts prior to this).
He that had shortly before been slack in the duty of faith was now eager to profess it. and in a short time his fault was wholly cured. For after an interval of only eight days the hindrances to his faith were removed by Christ, Who showed unto him the print of the nails and His wounded Side. But, perhaps, someone will ask the question: "Tell me why did the minds of the holy disciples carry out so rigid an inquiry, and so careful a scrutiny? For would not the sight of the Lord's Body, the features of His Face, and the measure of His Stature, |have sufficed to prove that He had indeed risen from the dead, and to secure His recognition?" What do we reply? The inspired disciples were not free from doubt, although they had seen the Lord. For, they thought that He was not in very truth the same as He Who of old had lived and dwelt among them, and had hung upon the Cross, but rather that He was a Spirit, cunningly fashioned like unto our Saviour's Image, and simulating the features of the form which they knew. For they fell into this delusion not without some apparent excuse, as He miraculously entered when the doors were closed; in spite of the fact that a body of coarse earthy mould requires a hole through which it can pass, and necessitates the aperture of the door to correspond in width with the size of the body. For this cause our Lord Jesus Christ, greatly to our profit, laid bare His Side to Thomas, and exposed the wounds on His Person, through his agency giving adequate proof to all. For though of Thomas alone is recorded the saying: Except I shall put my hands and see the prints of the nails, and put my hand into His Side, I will not believe, yet was the charge of lack of faith common to them all; and we shall find that the minds of the other disciples were not free from perplexity, though they said unto the holy Thomas: We have seen the Lord. And that what we say does not err from the truth we may easily perceive by what the Divine Luke tells us: As they spake these things, He stood in the midst of them, that is, of course, Christ, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they beheld a spirit. And He said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and wherefore do reasonings arise in your hearts? See My Hands and My Feet, that it is I Myself: handle Me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye behold Me having. And when He had said this, He showed them His Hands and His Feet. And while they still disbelieved for joy, and wondered, He said unto them, Have ye here anything to eat? And they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. And He took it, and did eat before them. You see how the thought of unbelief is found lurking, not in the blessed Thomas alone, but that the minds of the other disciples were afflicted with a kindred disease. For, lo and behold! seeing that their faith wavered even after the sight of the wounds upon the Cross, He thought it right to convince them by another act, in nowise suited to a spirit, but specially appropriate to earthly bodies and the nature of flesh. For He ate the fish that was brought unto Him, or the portion of one. For when no mark at all of corruption any longer remained after the Resurrection of His holy Flesh, because He lived again to incorruption, and when it was incredible that His Body stood in need of food as heretofore, He yet showed unto them the print of the nails, and did not refuse to partake of food, in order that He might establish the great mystery of the Resurrection, and cause faith in it to spring up in the souls of us all. He does acts wholly alien to the nature of spirits. For how, and in what way, could the prints of nails, and the traces of wounds, and participation in bodily food, be found to exist in a naked spirit unconnected with flesh, to which all these things are suitable by the law of its being and the conditions under which it exists? In order, then, that none might think that Christ rose again a mere spirit, or an impalpable body, shadowy and ethereal, to which some give the name of spiritual, but that the selfsame body that was sown in corruption, as Paul saith, might be believed to have risen again, He openly did acts suitable to a palpable human form. What we said at first, however, namely, that the blessed disciple did not so much lack faith owing to infirmity of judgment, but rather was affected in this way by excess of joy, will not be wide of the mark. For we have heard the saying of the blessed Luke concerning all the others: And while they disbelieved for joy and wondered. It was wonder, therefore, that made the disciples slow to be convinced. But as henceforward there was no excuse for unbelief, as they saw with their own eyes, the blessed Thomas accordingly unflinchingly confessed his faith in Him, saying: My Lord and my God. For we must all confess that it follows of a surety that He That is Lord by Nature and Ruler over all is also God, just as also universal dominion and the glory of sovereignty is clearly seen to appertain to the living God.
May we all benefit from the writings of our blessed Church Fathers, childoforthodoxy
No one ever clearly stated that one can be an apostle and not be considered a priest. Does that mean apostleship comes with no authority? Aren't apostles selected and given breathed on as Christ did? So how can Junia be an apostle? She must have been ordained. . .
My dear brother, I hope that you find no offense in my posting in response to your words. I just wish to clarify things in order that we all may benefit with one another in this season of the Holy Fifty Days.
We are not arguing whether the disciples recognized Him on His first appearance to them. What we are comparing is Mary Magdalene and Thomas and why one was not allowed to touch Him and the other was allowed.
So, let me explain it again.
The Lord appeared to the disciples on the same Sunday He resurrected, but Thomas was not with them. When they told Him, he did not believe and wanted to see and touch for Himself.
Contrast that with Mary Magdalene who:
Saw the empty tomb
Heard the angels testimony of the resurrection
Talked with the Lord
The Lord called her by name
Yet after all that she still wanted to touch Him.
Do you agree that she had more exposure to the resurrection than Thomas who witnessed nothing of the resurrection events except that he heard the news from the disciples?
These are just my thoughts. If we look at the original Apostles of Christ, something that makes them unique is that Christ breathed in their faces and gave them the Holy Spirit to bind and loose sins. This is clearly indicative of the priesthood. Now, what is the definition of 'apostle'. According to wikipedia:
The word "apostle" has two meanings, the broader meaning of a messenger and the narrow meaning of an early apostle directly linked to Jesus Christ. The more general meaning of the word is translated into Latin as 'missio', and from this word we get 'missionary.'
The word apostle comes from the Greek word ἀπόστολος (apostolos). According to the Bauer lexicon, Walter Bauer's Greek-English Lexicon of the NT: "…Judaism had an office known as apostle (שליח)". See also Proselytes. The Friberg Greek Lexicon gives a broad definition as one who is sent on a mission, a commissioned representative of a congregation, a messenger for God, a person who has the special task of founding and establishing churches. The UBS Greek Dictionary also describes an apostle broadly as a messenger. The Louw-Nida Lexicon gives a very narrow definition of a special messenger, generally restricted to the immediate followers of Jesus, or extended to some others like Paul or other early Christians active in proclaiming the gospel.
(Emphasis mine)
So an apostle is simply a person who is proclaiming the Gospel. Thus, they could be male or female. A person who is an apostle may not necessarily be a priest (presbyter). Look at it this way, the following 'positions' in the Church involve some sort of ordination: apostles, deacons, deaconess, presbyter (priest) and overseer (bishop). Now, a man who is an apostle may or may not be ordained as a deacon or priest or bishop or neither. A woman could be ordained as a deaconess and an apostle or one or the other. Just because someone is an apostle, does not necessarily make them a priest. They are different roles in the Church.
You can read more about Junia on the wiki article if you're interested.
Romans 16:7 NKJ "Greet Andronicus and Junia, my countrymen and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me."
The verse talks of their reputation among the apostles not that they were among the apostles.
[quote=Homily XXXI on Rom. xvi. 5.]Ver. 7. “Salute Andronicus and Junia my kinsmen.”
This also looks like an encomium. And what follows is much more so. And what sort is this of? “And my fellow-prisoners.” For this is the greatest honor, the noble proclamation. And where was Paul a prisoner, that he should call them “my fellow-prisoners?” A prisoner indeed he had not been, but he had suffered things worse than prisoners, in being not an alien only to his country and his family, but in wrestling with famine and continual death, and thousands of other things. For of a prisoner the only misfortune is this, that he is separated from his relations, and often has to be a slave instead of being free. But in this case one may mention temptations thick as snow-flakes, which this blessed person underwent by being carried and taken about, scourged, fettered, stoned, shipwrecked, with countless people plotting against him. And captives indeed have no further foe after they are led away, but they even experience great care from those who have taken them. But this man was continually in the midst of enemies, and saw spears on every side, and sharpened swords, and arrays, and battles. Since then it was likely that these shared many dangers with him, he calls them fellow-captives. As in another passage also, “Aristarchus my fellow-prisoner.” (Col. iv. 10.) Then another praise besides. “Who are of note among the Apostles.” And indeed to be apostles at all is a great thing. But to be even amongst these of note, just consider what a great encomium this is! But they were of note owing to their works, to their achievements. Oh! how great is the devotion (φιλοσοφία) of this woman, that she should be even counted worthy of the appellation of apostle! But even here he does not stop, but adds another encomium besides, and says, “Who were also in Christ before me.”
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=11375.msg137525#msg137525 date=1304731034] We are not arguing whether the disciples recognized Him on His first appearance to them. What we are comparing is Mary Magdalene and Thomas and why one was not allowed to touch Him and the other was allowed.
So, let me explain it again.
The Lord appeared to the disciples on the same Sunday He resurrected, but Thomas was not with them. When they told Him, he did not believe and wanted to see and touch for Himself.
Contrast that with Mary Magdalene who:
Saw the empty tomb
Heard the angels testimony of the resurrection
Talked with the Lord
The Lord called her by name
Yet after all that she still wanted to touch Him.
Do you agree that she had more exposure to the resurrection than Thomas who witnessed nothing of the resurrection events except that he heard the news from the disciples?
You're assuming, of course, that the reason she wished to touch Him was to confirm He was real. Perhaps, in her joy, she wanted to touch Him to embrace Him.
"Then another praise besides. Who are of note among the Apostles. And indeed to be apostles at all is a great thing. But to be even among these of note, just consider what a great encomium this is! But they were of note owing to their works, to their achievements. "
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=11375.msg137533#msg137533 date=1304737324] That is not the opinion of St. Cyril pillar of faith. His explanation is already posted in this thread.
So you pick and choose when to agree with St. Cyril? Seriously dude? St. Cyril makes the argument that Mary Magdalene, Thomas, and all the apostles for that matter, had the same level of doubt. Your argument that Mary had more 'opportunities' to believe than Thomas is moot according to St. Cyril. Are you even listening to yourself? Do you not get how silly your entire argument is?
"Then another praise besides. Who are of note among the Apostles. And indeed to be apostles at all is a great thing. But to be even among these of note, just consider what a great encomium this is! But they were of note owing to their works, to their achievements. "
Again, a blatant lack of reading comprehension. Read everything I've bolded. St. John is all but calling both Andronicus and Junia apostles. My God man!
Romans 16:7 NKJ "Greet Andronicus and Junia, my countrymen and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me."
Let me explain it to you since you seem to skip words:
St Paul says: "Who are of note among the apostles". If the verse were to say: "who are among the apostles" then I would agree with you but it does not.
The key word here is "note" which means well known (from Coptic translation of the word "hansween"), distinguished, of good reputation, or of good character.
English is clearly a second language to you. In English, both sentences can mean the exact same thing. To say someone is of note, means they are special among a group of people. For instance if I said, 'George Washington is of note among the Presidents of the United States' and 'George Washington is among the Presidents of the United States' it is clear that George Washington IS a President of the United States. The difference is, in the first case, George Washington is especially notable (i.e. worthy of attention or notice) as a President whereas, in the latter case, it's just a simple statement that George Washington is ranked among other Presidents.
Once again, St. John's explanation seems to indicate that they were apostles of note. That is, deserving of attention or notice.
So it is agreed that she was an apostle (forgive me imikhail but your argument is unfounded). Now we are talking about what that entails. Cephas brought up that there is a broad (messenger) and narrow (directly linked to Christ) sense of the word. My question is: why assume it is the broad sense? Besides the twelve disciples there is no evidence that Christ breathed on anyone else.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=11375.msg137540#msg137540 date=1304741958] May be lack of comprehension on your part .. Here is the verse again
Romans 16:7 NKJ "Greet Andronicus and Junia, my countrymen and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me."
Let me explain it to you since you seem to skip words:
St Paul says: "Who are of note among the apostles". If the verse were to say: "who are among the apostles" then I would agree with you but it does not.
The key word here is "note" which means well known (from Coptic translation of the word "hansween"), distinguished, of good reputation, or of good character.
Do not read to fast and read with understanding.
I posted this about 4 times already but 1 more time wouldn't hurt.
St. John Chrysostom- "Homilies on Romans 31" on Romans 16:6-7
"Think how great the devotion of this woman Junia must have been , that she should be worthy to be called an apostle!"
Theoderet - "Interpretation of the Letter to the Romans" on Romans 16:7
"These people were companions of Paul in his sufferings and even shared imprisonment with him. Hence he says that they are men and women of note, not among the pupils but among the teachers, and not among the ordinary teachers but among the apostles!"
Origen - "Commentary of the Epistle to the Romans" on Romans 16:1-12
"This passage teaches that there were women ordained in the church's ministry by the apostle's authority."
[quote author=Κηφᾶς link=topic=11375.msg137535#msg137535 date=1304738973] + Irini nem ehmot,
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=11375.msg137533#msg137533 date=1304737324] That is not the opinion of St. Cyril pillar of faith. His explanation is already posted in this thread.
So you pick and choose when to agree with St. Cyril? Seriously dude? St. Cyril makes the argument that Mary Magdalene, Thomas, and all the apostles for that matter, had the same level of doubt. Your argument that Mary had more 'opportunities' to believe than Thomas is moot according to St. Cyril. Are you even listening to yourself? Do you not get how silly your entire argument is?
May be if you show where St Cyril say that Mary Magdalene and the apostles had the same level of doubt I will know how silly my argument is and you and I can share a laugh.
[quote author=Κηφᾶς link=topic=11375.msg137541#msg137541 date=1304742784] + Irini nem ehmot,
English is clearly a second language to you. In English, both sentences can mean the exact same thing. To say someone is of note, means they are special among a group of people. For instance if I said, 'George Washington is of note among the Presidents of the United States' and 'George Washington is among the Presidents of the United States' it is clear that George Washington IS a President of the United States. The difference is, in the first case, George Washington is especially notable (i.e. worthy of attention or notice) as a President whereas, in the latter case, it's just a simple statement that George Washington is ranked among other Presidents.
Once again, St. John's explanation seems to indicate that they were apostles of note. That is, deserving of attention or notice.
You seem to interpret what you want to hear.
If a sentence can mean different things then it is not a definite thing. The words "seem to indicate" do not mean a definite thing. Why do not you keep this in the back of your head if you are still in school.? It will help you and will take you a long way.
I will have to say that your example of George Washington is a ridiculous one. "'George Washington is of note among the Presidents of the United States'" can only be said historically not while he was living.
St Paul obviously was not talking historically when he was saying that they were well known to the apostles, or they are of good note among the apostles.
The question is why would he say that if in fact these two people were already apostles? Were there known apostles and not so known ones? Were there ones of good note like the ones were are dealing with here and there were ones of bad note?
[quote author=Unworthy1 link=topic=11375.msg137546#msg137546 date=1304749877] [quote author=imikhail link=topic=11375.msg137540#msg137540 date=1304741958] May be lack of comprehension on your part .. Here is the verse again
Romans 16:7 NKJ "Greet Andronicus and Junia, my countrymen and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me."
Let me explain it to you since you seem to skip words:
St Paul says: "Who are of note among the apostles". If the verse were to say: "who are among the apostles" then I would agree with you but it does not.
The key word here is "note" which means well known (from Coptic translation of the word "hansween"), distinguished, of good reputation, or of good character.
Do not read to fast and read with understanding.
I posted this about 4 times already but 1 more time wouldn't hurt.
St. John Chrysostom- "Homilies on Romans 31" on Romans 16:6-7
"Think how great the devotion of this woman Junia must have been , that she should be worthy to be called an apostle!"
Theoderet - "Interpretation of the Letter to the Romans" on Romans 16:7
"These people were companions of Paul in his sufferings and even shared imprisonment with him. Hence he says that they are men and women of note, not among the pupils but among the teachers, and not among the ordinary teachers but among the apostles!"
Origen - "Commentary of the Epistle to the Romans" on Romans 16:1-12
"This passage teaches that there were women ordained in the church's ministry by the apostle's authority."
Origen's statement is the cleareast as to the ordination of women ... Will you please provide the source from which you got this statement?
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=11375.msg137533#msg137533 date=1304737324] That is not the opinion of St. Cyril pillar of faith. His explanation is already posted in this thread.
So you pick and choose when to agree with St. Cyril? Seriously dude? St. Cyril makes the argument that Mary Magdalene, Thomas, and all the apostles for that matter, had the same level of doubt. Your argument that Mary had more 'opportunities' to believe than Thomas is moot according to St. Cyril. Are you even listening to yourself? Do you not get how silly your entire argument is?
May be if you show where St Cyril say that Mary Magdalene and the apostles had the same level of doubt I will know how silly my argument is and you and I can share a laugh.
childoforthodoxy has already spoon fed this to you. Go back and read the bolded portions.
P.S. Your lack of English comprehension is showing.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=11375.msg137550#msg137550 date=1304773309] Clearly you need some critical thinking ... you seem to interpret what you want to hear.
Do you even know what critical thinking is? And I haven't 'heard' anything. Again, your limited grasp of the English language is showing.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=11375.msg137550#msg137550 date=1304773309] If a sentence can mean different things then it is not a definite thing. The words "seem to indicate" do not mean a definite thing. Why do not you keep this in the back of your head if you are still in school.? It will help you and will take you a long way.
You are the one making a 'definite' statement. You are stating that the verse in Romans cannot be used to show that there were female Apostles. I have shown how it can, in fact, be interpreted as such. If I present even one simple counterexample to what you've stated, your entire argument falls apart. I know I'm not making a 'definite' statement, because, being the intelligent individual I am, I understand that the statement can be viewed in multiple ways. Add to that, the quote from St. John Chrysostom that I have presented AND the quotes that Unworthy1 has been kind enough to post, it is clear you don't have a leg to stand on.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=11375.msg137550#msg137550 date=1304773309] I will have to say that your example of George Washington is a ridiculous one. "'George Washington is of note among the Presidents of the United States'" can only be said historically not while he was living.
St Paul obviously was not talking historically when he was saying that they were well known to the apostles, or they are of good note among the apostles.
The example perfectly illustrates how the verse can be viewed in multiple ways. Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it any less valid. However, allow me to 'update' it to the present tense so you can better swallow it.
Example 1: If I said, 'Anba Angaelos and Abba Seraphim are of note among the bishops' and 'Anba Angaelos and Abba Seraphim are among the bishops' it is clear that both Anba Angaelos and Abba Seraphim ARE bishops. The difference is, in the first case, both Anba Angaelos and Abba Seraphim are especially notable (i.e. worthy of attention or notice) as bishops whereas, in the latter case, it's just a simple statement that Anba Angaelos and Abba Seraphim are ranked among other bishops.
Example 2: If I said, 'imikhail is of note among the resident village idiots on tasbeha.org' and 'imikhail is among the resident village idiots on tasbeha.org' it is clear that imikhail IS a resident village idiot on tasbeha.org. The difference is, in the first case, imikhail is especially notable (i.e. worthy of attention or notice) as a resident village idiot whereas, in the latter case, it's just a simple statement that imikhail is ranked among other resident village idiots.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=11375.msg137550#msg137550 date=1304773309] The question is why would he say that if in fact these two people were already apostles? Were there known apostles and not so known ones? Were there ones of good note like the ones were are dealing with here and there were ones of bad note?
The answer is simple. St. Paul wanted to point out that these two individuals possessed virtues and characteristics worthy of notice, and wished to address it.
Now that we've clearly established your lack of English reading and verbal comprehension, perhaps it would be wise to just step aside, not allowing further embarrassment of your 'condition' and just let the adults carry on with their discussion.
[quote author=Unworthy1 link=topic=11375.msg137545#msg137545 date=1304749781] So it is agreed that she was an apostle (forgive me imikhail but your argument is unfounded). Now we are talking about what that entails. Cephas brought up that there is a broad (messenger) and narrow (directly linked to Christ) sense of the word. My question is: why assume it is the broad sense? Besides the twelve disciples there is no evidence that Christ breathed on anyone else.
There is no evidence that either Andronicus and Junia knew Christ directly and were His followers. It seems they were both Gentiles who became Christian as a result of their encounter with St. Paul. As such, they were both probably not picked by Christ Himself. So it makes more sense to view them as apostles in the broader sense, having been ordained by St. Paul to preach in Rome.
I think we both agree that Christ breathing on the twelve was to ordain them into the priesthood. This practice has continued to the present day in the ordination of priests and bishops, having been passed down from Christ to the disciples, to their disciples and so on until the present day.
Then who breathed on the 70? Can we so readily dismiss any possibility that St. Paul breathed on Junia and gave her the apostleship in the narrow sense? They did not necessarily need to be picked by Christ Himself but could have been picked by one of His disciples or apostles. . .
Your point is valid and making Junia into an apostle in the narrow sense would be to add too much to the text that isn't there. The only strong counter-argument that I can see coming is that there is no such thing as an apostle in the narrow sense. That is why I was asking for evidence of priestly duties being handled strictly by the apostles (e.g. distributing the Body and Blood).
[quote author=Unworthy1 link=topic=11375.msg137558#msg137558 date=1304796109] Then who breathed on the 70? Can we so readily dismiss any possibility that St. Paul breathed on Junia and gave her the apostleship in the narrow sense? They did not necessarily need to be picked by Christ Himself but could have been picked by one of His disciples or apostles. . .
Your point is valid and making Junia into an apostle in the narrow sense would be to add too much to the text that isn't there. The only strong counter-argument that I can see coming is that there is no such thing as an apostle in the narrow sense. That is why I was asking for evidence of priestly duties being handled strictly by the apostles (e.g. distributing the Body and Blood).
The 70 apostles are mentioned in St. Luke's gospel correct? If that is the case, and Christ did send them out to preach as well, then in all likelihood they also were breathed upon by Christ Himself. I think there is something important to realize though, just because a person was an apostle, does not make them, by default, a priest (i.e. they are given the ability to administer the sacraments). Granted, the 12 disciples and the 70 apostles were both apostles and priests/bishops. However, that does not mean that all the apostles that followed were also ordained as priests. Take St. Stephen for instance, he preached the gospel but was ordained as a deacon only, not a priest. Thus, St. Stephen, in all likelihood, aided in the services of the Church, but did not administer the Sacraments. Does that make sense?
[quote author=Κηφᾶς link=topic=11375.msg137560#msg137560 date=1304796671] + Irini nem ehmot,
[quote author=Unworthy1 link=topic=11375.msg137558#msg137558 date=1304796109] Then who breathed on the 70? Can we so readily dismiss any possibility that St. Paul breathed on Junia and gave her the apostleship in the narrow sense? They did not necessarily need to be picked by Christ Himself but could have been picked by one of His disciples or apostles. . .
Your point is valid and making Junia into an apostle in the narrow sense would be to add too much to the text that isn't there. The only strong counter-argument that I can see coming is that there is no such thing as an apostle in the narrow sense. That is why I was asking for evidence of priestly duties being handled strictly by the apostles (e.g. distributing the Body and Blood).
The 70 apostles are mentioned in St. Luke's gospel correct? If that is the case, and Christ did send them out to preach as well, then in all likelihood they also were breathed upon by Christ Himself. I think there is something important to realize though, just because a person was an apostle, does not make them, by default, a priest (i.e. they are given the ability to administer the sacraments). Granted, the 12 disciples and the 70 apostles were both apostles and priests/bishops. However, that does not mean that all the apostles that followed were also ordained as priests. Take St. Stephen for instance, he preached the gospel but was ordained as a deacon only, not a priest. Thus, St. Stephen, in all likelihood, aided in the services of the Church, but did not administer the Sacraments. Does that make sense?
Christ sent the 70 out to preach. That makes me think they were apostles in the broad sense. Why wouldn't Luke mention they were 'breathed on' just as the disciples were? I understand what you are saying. I just think it is arbitrary to pick and choose when we think someone is an "Apostle" or an "apostle". . .there is a lack of evidence? It is very possible that the 12 appointed others, maybe a few women. . .Why assume the women mentioned were apostles?
Comments
But then He did not allow her to touch Him to elevate her mind from the belief of senses and told her to go and preach his disciples.
As long as you make it clear that it is a personal contemplation.
But then He did not allow her to touch Him to elevate her mind from the belief of senses and told her to go and preach his disciples.
imikhail,
My dear brother, I hope that you find no offense in my posting in response to your words. I just wish to clarify things in order that we all may benefit with one another in this season of the Holy Fifty Days.
You comment that she still thought Him to be a ghost, and thus did not believe, and still "wanted to touch him." Perhaps we can examine what the Fathers say about the disciples in their recognition of Christ when He appeared to them the first time. The following is a commentary written by St. Cyril of Alexandria (which I made reference to a few posts prior to this).
He that had shortly before been slack in the duty of faith was now eager to profess it. and in a short time his fault was wholly cured. For after an interval of only eight days the hindrances to his faith were removed by Christ, Who showed unto him the print of the nails and His wounded Side. But, perhaps, someone will ask the question: "Tell me why did the minds of the holy disciples carry out so rigid an inquiry, and so careful a scrutiny? For would not the sight of the Lord's Body, the features of His Face, and the measure of His Stature, |have sufficed to prove that He had indeed risen from the dead, and to secure His recognition?" What do we reply? The inspired disciples were not free from doubt, although they had seen the Lord. For, they thought that He was not in very truth the same as He Who of old had lived and dwelt among them, and had hung upon the Cross, but rather that He was a Spirit, cunningly fashioned like unto our Saviour's Image, and simulating the features of the form which they knew. For they fell into this delusion not without some apparent excuse, as He miraculously entered when the doors were closed; in spite of the fact that a body of coarse earthy mould requires a hole through which it can pass, and necessitates the aperture of the door to correspond in width with the size of the body. For this cause our Lord Jesus Christ, greatly to our profit, laid bare His Side to Thomas, and exposed the wounds on His Person, through his agency giving adequate proof to all. For though of Thomas alone is recorded the saying: Except I shall put my hands and see the prints of the nails, and put my hand into His Side, I will not believe, yet was the charge of lack of faith common to them all; and we shall find that the minds of the other disciples were not free from perplexity, though they said unto the holy Thomas: We have seen the Lord. And that what we say does not err from the truth we may easily perceive by what the Divine Luke tells us: As they spake these things, He stood in the midst of them, that is, of course, Christ, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they beheld a spirit. And He said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and wherefore do reasonings arise in your hearts? See My Hands and My Feet, that it is I Myself: handle Me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye behold Me having. And when He had said this, He showed them His Hands and His Feet. And while they still disbelieved for joy, and wondered, He said unto them, Have ye here anything to eat? And they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. And He took it, and did eat before them. You see how the thought of unbelief is found lurking, not in the blessed Thomas alone, but that the minds of the other disciples were afflicted with a kindred disease. For, lo and behold! seeing that their faith wavered even after the sight of the wounds upon the Cross, He thought it right to convince them by another act, in nowise suited to a spirit, but specially appropriate to earthly bodies and the nature of flesh. For He ate the fish that was brought unto Him, or the portion of one. For when no mark at all of corruption any longer remained after the Resurrection of His holy Flesh, because He lived again to incorruption, and when it was incredible that His Body stood in need of food as heretofore, He yet showed unto them the print of the nails, and did not refuse to partake of food, in order that He might establish the great mystery of the Resurrection, and cause faith in it to spring up in the souls of us all. He does acts wholly alien to the nature of spirits. For how, and in what way, could the prints of nails, and the traces of wounds, and participation in bodily food, be found to exist in a naked spirit unconnected with flesh, to which all these things are suitable by the law of its being and the conditions under which it exists? In order, then, that none might think that Christ rose again a mere spirit, or an impalpable body, shadowy and ethereal, to which some give the name of spiritual, but that the selfsame body that was sown in corruption, as Paul saith, might be believed to have risen again, He openly did acts suitable to a palpable human form. What we said at first, however, namely, that the blessed disciple did not so much lack faith owing to infirmity of judgment, but rather was affected in this way by excess of joy, will not be wide of the mark. For we have heard the saying of the blessed Luke concerning all the others: And while they disbelieved for joy and wondered. It was wonder, therefore, that made the disciples slow to be convinced. But as henceforward there was no excuse for unbelief, as they saw with their own eyes, the blessed Thomas accordingly unflinchingly confessed his faith in Him, saying: My Lord and my God. For we must all confess that it follows of a surety that He That is Lord by Nature and Ruler over all is also God, just as also universal dominion and the glory of sovereignty is clearly seen to appertain to the living God.
May we all benefit from the writings of our blessed Church Fathers,
childoforthodoxy
So, let me explain it again.
The Lord appeared to the disciples on the same Sunday He resurrected, but Thomas was not with them. When they told Him, he did not believe and wanted to see and touch for Himself.
Contrast that with Mary Magdalene who:
Saw the empty tomb
Heard the angels testimony of the resurrection
Talked with the Lord
The Lord called her by name
Yet after all that she still wanted to touch Him.
Do you agree that she had more exposure to the resurrection than Thomas who witnessed nothing of the resurrection events except that he heard the news from the disciples?
These are just my thoughts. If we look at the original Apostles of Christ, something that makes them unique is that Christ breathed in their faces and gave them the Holy Spirit to bind and loose sins. This is clearly indicative of the priesthood. Now, what is the definition of 'apostle'. According to wikipedia: (Emphasis mine)
So an apostle is simply a person who is proclaiming the Gospel. Thus, they could be male or female. A person who is an apostle may not necessarily be a priest (presbyter). Look at it this way, the following 'positions' in the Church involve some sort of ordination: apostles, deacons, deaconess, presbyter (priest) and overseer (bishop). Now, a man who is an apostle may or may not be ordained as a deacon or priest or bishop or neither. A woman could be ordained as a deaconess and an apostle or one or the other. Just because someone is an apostle, does not necessarily make them a priest. They are different roles in the Church.
You can read more about Junia on the wiki article if you're interested.
Romans 16:7 NKJ
"Greet Andronicus and Junia, my countrymen and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me."
The verse talks of their reputation among the apostles not that they were among the apostles.
St. John Chrysostom would disagree with you.
[quote=Homily XXXI on Rom. xvi. 5.]Ver. 7. “Salute Andronicus and Junia my kinsmen.”
This also looks like an encomium. And what follows is much more so. And what sort is this of? “And my fellow-prisoners.” For this is the greatest honor, the noble proclamation. And where was Paul a prisoner, that he should call them “my fellow-prisoners?” A prisoner indeed he had not been, but he had suffered things worse than prisoners, in being not an alien only to his country and his family, but in wrestling with famine and continual death, and thousands of other things. For of a prisoner the only misfortune is this, that he is separated from his relations, and often has to be a slave instead of being free. But in this case one may mention temptations thick as snow-flakes, which this blessed person underwent by being carried and taken about, scourged, fettered, stoned, shipwrecked, with countless people plotting against him. And captives indeed have no further foe after they are led away, but they even experience great care from those who have taken them. But this man was continually in the midst of enemies, and saw spears on every side, and sharpened swords, and arrays, and battles. Since then it was likely that these shared many dangers with him, he calls them fellow-captives. As in another passage also, “Aristarchus my fellow-prisoner.” (Col. iv. 10.) Then another praise besides. “Who are of note among the Apostles.” And indeed to be apostles at all is a great thing. But to be even amongst these of note, just consider what a great encomium this is! But they were of note owing to their works, to their achievements. Oh! how great is the devotion (φιλοσοφία) of this woman, that she should be even counted worthy of the appellation of apostle! But even here he does not stop, but adds another encomium besides, and says, “Who were also in Christ before me.”
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=11375.msg137525#msg137525 date=1304731034]
We are not arguing whether the disciples recognized Him on His first appearance to them. What we are comparing is Mary Magdalene and Thomas and why one was not allowed to touch Him and the other was allowed.
So, let me explain it again.
The Lord appeared to the disciples on the same Sunday He resurrected, but Thomas was not with them. When they told Him, he did not believe and wanted to see and touch for Himself.
Contrast that with Mary Magdalene who:
Saw the empty tomb
Heard the angels testimony of the resurrection
Talked with the Lord
The Lord called her by name
Yet after all that she still wanted to touch Him.
Do you agree that she had more exposure to the resurrection than Thomas who witnessed nothing of the resurrection events except that he heard the news from the disciples?
You're assuming, of course, that the reason she wished to touch Him was to confirm He was real. Perhaps, in her joy, she wanted to touch Him to embrace Him.
"Then another praise besides. Who are of note among the Apostles. And indeed to be apostles at all is a great thing. But to be even among these of note, just consider what a great encomium this is! But they were of note owing to their works, to their achievements. "
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=11375.msg137533#msg137533 date=1304737324]
That is not the opinion of St. Cyril pillar of faith. His explanation is already posted in this thread.
So you pick and choose when to agree with St. Cyril? Seriously dude? St. Cyril makes the argument that Mary Magdalene, Thomas, and all the apostles for that matter, had the same level of doubt. Your argument that Mary had more 'opportunities' to believe than Thomas is moot according to St. Cyril. Are you even listening to yourself? Do you not get how silly your entire argument is?
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=11375.msg137534#msg137534 date=1304738031] How would he disagree with me when he says:
"Then another praise besides. Who are of note among the Apostles. And indeed to be apostles at all is a great thing. But to be even among these of note, just consider what a great encomium this is! But they were of note owing to their works, to their achievements. "
Again, a blatant lack of reading comprehension. Read everything I've bolded. St. John is all but calling both Andronicus and Junia apostles. My God man!
Romans 16:7 NKJ
"Greet Andronicus and Junia, my countrymen and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me."
Let me explain it to you since you seem to skip words:
St Paul says: "Who are of note among the apostles". If the verse were to say: "who are among the apostles" then I would agree with you but it does not.
The key word here is "note" which means well known (from Coptic translation of the word "hansween"), distinguished, of good reputation, or of good character.
Do not read to fast and read with understanding.
English is clearly a second language to you. In English, both sentences can mean the exact same thing. To say someone is of note, means they are special among a group of people. For instance if I said, 'George Washington is of note among the Presidents of the United States' and 'George Washington is among the Presidents of the United States' it is clear that George Washington IS a President of the United States. The difference is, in the first case, George Washington is especially notable (i.e. worthy of attention or notice) as a President whereas, in the latter case, it's just a simple statement that George Washington is ranked among other Presidents.
Once again, St. John's explanation seems to indicate that they were apostles of note. That is, deserving of attention or notice.
May be lack of comprehension on your part .. Here is the verse again
Romans 16:7 NKJ
"Greet Andronicus and Junia, my countrymen and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me."
Let me explain it to you since you seem to skip words:
St Paul says: "Who are of note among the apostles". If the verse were to say: "who are among the apostles" then I would agree with you but it does not.
The key word here is "note" which means well known (from Coptic translation of the word "hansween"), distinguished, of good reputation, or of good character.
Do not read to fast and read with understanding.
I posted this about 4 times already but 1 more time wouldn't hurt.
St. John Chrysostom- "Homilies on Romans 31" on Romans 16:6-7
"Think how great the devotion of this woman Junia must have been , that she should be worthy to be called an apostle!"
Theoderet - "Interpretation of the Letter to the Romans" on Romans 16:7
"These people were companions of Paul in his sufferings and even shared imprisonment with him. Hence he says that they are men and women of note, not among the pupils but among the teachers, and not among the ordinary teachers but among the apostles!"
Origen - "Commentary of the Epistle to the Romans" on Romans 16:1-12
"This passage teaches that there were women ordained in the church's ministry by the apostle's authority."
+ Irini nem ehmot,
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=11375.msg137533#msg137533 date=1304737324]
That is not the opinion of St. Cyril pillar of faith. His explanation is already posted in this thread.
So you pick and choose when to agree with St. Cyril? Seriously dude? St. Cyril makes the argument that Mary Magdalene, Thomas, and all the apostles for that matter, had the same level of doubt. Your argument that Mary had more 'opportunities' to believe than Thomas is moot according to St. Cyril. Are you even listening to yourself? Do you not get how silly your entire argument is?
May be if you show where St Cyril say that Mary Magdalene and the apostles had the same level of doubt I will know how silly my argument is and you and I can share a laugh.
+ Irini nem ehmot,
English is clearly a second language to you. In English, both sentences can mean the exact same thing. To say someone is of note, means they are special among a group of people. For instance if I said, 'George Washington is of note among the Presidents of the United States' and 'George Washington is among the Presidents of the United States' it is clear that George Washington IS a President of the United States. The difference is, in the first case, George Washington is especially notable (i.e. worthy of attention or notice) as a President whereas, in the latter case, it's just a simple statement that George Washington is ranked among other Presidents.
Once again, St. John's explanation seems to indicate that they were apostles of note. That is, deserving of attention or notice.
You seem to interpret what you want to hear.
If a sentence can mean different things then it is not a definite thing. The words "seem to indicate" do not mean a definite thing. Why do not you keep this in the back of your head if you are still in school.? It will help you and will take you a long way.
I will have to say that your example of George Washington is a ridiculous one. "'George Washington is of note among the Presidents of the United States'" can only be said historically not while he was living.
St Paul obviously was not talking historically when he was saying that they were well known to the apostles, or they are of good note among the apostles.
The question is why would he say that if in fact these two people were already apostles? Were there known apostles and not so known ones? Were there ones of good note like the ones were are dealing with here and there were ones of bad note?
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=11375.msg137540#msg137540 date=1304741958]
May be lack of comprehension on your part .. Here is the verse again
Romans 16:7 NKJ
"Greet Andronicus and Junia, my countrymen and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me."
Let me explain it to you since you seem to skip words:
St Paul says: "Who are of note among the apostles". If the verse were to say: "who are among the apostles" then I would agree with you but it does not.
The key word here is "note" which means well known (from Coptic translation of the word "hansween"), distinguished, of good reputation, or of good character.
Do not read to fast and read with understanding.
I posted this about 4 times already but 1 more time wouldn't hurt.
St. John Chrysostom- "Homilies on Romans 31" on Romans 16:6-7
"Think how great the devotion of this woman Junia must have been , that she should be worthy to be called an apostle!"
Theoderet - "Interpretation of the Letter to the Romans" on Romans 16:7
"These people were companions of Paul in his sufferings and even shared imprisonment with him. Hence he says that they are men and women of note, not among the pupils but among the teachers, and not among the ordinary teachers but among the apostles!"
Origen - "Commentary of the Epistle to the Romans" on Romans 16:1-12
"This passage teaches that there were women ordained in the church's ministry by the apostle's authority."
Origen's statement is the cleareast as to the ordination of women ... Will you please provide the source from which you got this statement?
Thanks.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=11375.msg137549#msg137549 date=1304773005]
[quote author=Κηφᾶς link=topic=11375.msg137535#msg137535 date=1304738973]
+ Irini nem ehmot,
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=11375.msg137533#msg137533 date=1304737324]
That is not the opinion of St. Cyril pillar of faith. His explanation is already posted in this thread.
So you pick and choose when to agree with St. Cyril? Seriously dude? St. Cyril makes the argument that Mary Magdalene, Thomas, and all the apostles for that matter, had the same level of doubt. Your argument that Mary had more 'opportunities' to believe than Thomas is moot according to St. Cyril. Are you even listening to yourself? Do you not get how silly your entire argument is?
May be if you show where St Cyril say that Mary Magdalene and the apostles had the same level of doubt I will know how silly my argument is and you and I can share a laugh.
childoforthodoxy has already spoon fed this to you. Go back and read the bolded portions.
P.S. Your lack of English comprehension is showing.
<IMAGE REMOVED>
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=11375.msg137550#msg137550 date=1304773309]
Clearly you need some critical thinking ... you seem to interpret what you want to hear.
Do you even know what critical thinking is? And I haven't 'heard' anything. Again, your limited grasp of the English language is showing.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=11375.msg137550#msg137550 date=1304773309]
If a sentence can mean different things then it is not a definite thing. The words "seem to indicate" do not mean a definite thing. Why do not you keep this in the back of your head if you are still in school.? It will help you and will take you a long way.
You are the one making a 'definite' statement. You are stating that the verse in Romans cannot be used to show that there were female Apostles. I have shown how it can, in fact, be interpreted as such. If I present even one simple counterexample to what you've stated, your entire argument falls apart. I know I'm not making a 'definite' statement, because, being the intelligent individual I am, I understand that the statement can be viewed in multiple ways. Add to that, the quote from St. John Chrysostom that I have presented AND the quotes that Unworthy1 has been kind enough to post, it is clear you don't have a leg to stand on.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=11375.msg137550#msg137550 date=1304773309]
I will have to say that your example of George Washington is a ridiculous one. "'George Washington is of note among the Presidents of the United States'" can only be said historically not while he was living.
St Paul obviously was not talking historically when he was saying that they were well known to the apostles, or they are of good note among the apostles.
The example perfectly illustrates how the verse can be viewed in multiple ways. Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it any less valid. However, allow me to 'update' it to the present tense so you can better swallow it.
Example 1:
If I said, 'Anba Angaelos and Abba Seraphim are of note among the bishops' and 'Anba Angaelos and Abba Seraphim are among the bishops' it is clear that both Anba Angaelos and Abba Seraphim ARE bishops. The difference is, in the first case, both Anba Angaelos and Abba Seraphim are especially notable (i.e. worthy of attention or notice) as bishops whereas, in the latter case, it's just a simple statement that Anba Angaelos and Abba Seraphim are ranked among other bishops.
Example 2:
If I said, 'imikhail is of note among the resident village idiots on tasbeha.org' and 'imikhail is among the resident village idiots on tasbeha.org' it is clear that imikhail IS a resident village idiot on tasbeha.org. The difference is, in the first case, imikhail is especially notable (i.e. worthy of attention or notice) as a resident village idiot whereas, in the latter case, it's just a simple statement that imikhail is ranked among other resident village idiots.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=11375.msg137550#msg137550 date=1304773309]
The question is why would he say that if in fact these two people were already apostles? Were there known apostles and not so known ones? Were there ones of good note like the ones were are dealing with here and there were ones of bad note?
The answer is simple. St. Paul wanted to point out that these two individuals possessed virtues and characteristics worthy of notice, and wished to address it.
Now that we've clearly established your lack of English reading and verbal comprehension, perhaps it would be wise to just step aside, not allowing further embarrassment of your 'condition' and just let the adults carry on with their discussion.
[quote author=Unworthy1 link=topic=11375.msg137545#msg137545 date=1304749781]
So it is agreed that she was an apostle (forgive me imikhail but your argument is unfounded). Now we are talking about what that entails. Cephas brought up that there is a broad (messenger) and narrow (directly linked to Christ) sense of the word. My question is: why assume it is the broad sense? Besides the twelve disciples there is no evidence that Christ breathed on anyone else.
There is no evidence that either Andronicus and Junia knew Christ directly and were His followers. It seems they were both Gentiles who became Christian as a result of their encounter with St. Paul. As such, they were both probably not picked by Christ Himself. So it makes more sense to view them as apostles in the broader sense, having been ordained by St. Paul to preach in Rome.
I think we both agree that Christ breathing on the twelve was to ordain them into the priesthood. This practice has continued to the present day in the ordination of priests and bishops, having been passed down from Christ to the disciples, to their disciples and so on until the present day.
Your point is valid and making Junia into an apostle in the narrow sense would be to add too much to the text that isn't there. The only strong counter-argument that I can see coming is that there is no such thing as an apostle in the narrow sense. That is why I was asking for evidence of priestly duties being handled strictly by the apostles (e.g. distributing the Body and Blood).
[quote author=Unworthy1 link=topic=11375.msg137558#msg137558 date=1304796109]
Then who breathed on the 70? Can we so readily dismiss any possibility that St. Paul breathed on Junia and gave her the apostleship in the narrow sense? They did not necessarily need to be picked by Christ Himself but could have been picked by one of His disciples or apostles. . .
Your point is valid and making Junia into an apostle in the narrow sense would be to add too much to the text that isn't there. The only strong counter-argument that I can see coming is that there is no such thing as an apostle in the narrow sense. That is why I was asking for evidence of priestly duties being handled strictly by the apostles (e.g. distributing the Body and Blood).
The 70 apostles are mentioned in St. Luke's gospel correct? If that is the case, and Christ did send them out to preach as well, then in all likelihood they also were breathed upon by Christ Himself. I think there is something important to realize though, just because a person was an apostle, does not make them, by default, a priest (i.e. they are given the ability to administer the sacraments). Granted, the 12 disciples and the 70 apostles were both apostles and priests/bishops. However, that does not mean that all the apostles that followed were also ordained as priests. Take St. Stephen for instance, he preached the gospel but was ordained as a deacon only, not a priest. Thus, St. Stephen, in all likelihood, aided in the services of the Church, but did not administer the Sacraments. Does that make sense?
+ Irini nem ehmot,
[quote author=Unworthy1 link=topic=11375.msg137558#msg137558 date=1304796109]
Then who breathed on the 70? Can we so readily dismiss any possibility that St. Paul breathed on Junia and gave her the apostleship in the narrow sense? They did not necessarily need to be picked by Christ Himself but could have been picked by one of His disciples or apostles. . .
Your point is valid and making Junia into an apostle in the narrow sense would be to add too much to the text that isn't there. The only strong counter-argument that I can see coming is that there is no such thing as an apostle in the narrow sense. That is why I was asking for evidence of priestly duties being handled strictly by the apostles (e.g. distributing the Body and Blood).
The 70 apostles are mentioned in St. Luke's gospel correct? If that is the case, and Christ did send them out to preach as well, then in all likelihood they also were breathed upon by Christ Himself. I think there is something important to realize though, just because a person was an apostle, does not make them, by default, a priest (i.e. they are given the ability to administer the sacraments). Granted, the 12 disciples and the 70 apostles were both apostles and priests/bishops. However, that does not mean that all the apostles that followed were also ordained as priests. Take St. Stephen for instance, he preached the gospel but was ordained as a deacon only, not a priest. Thus, St. Stephen, in all likelihood, aided in the services of the Church, but did not administer the Sacraments. Does that make sense?
Christ sent the 70 out to preach. That makes me think they were apostles in the broad sense. Why wouldn't Luke mention they were 'breathed on' just as the disciples were? I understand what you are saying. I just think it is arbitrary to pick and choose when we think someone is an "Apostle" or an "apostle". . .there is a lack of evidence? It is very possible that the 12 appointed others, maybe a few women. . .Why assume the women mentioned were apostles?