Perhaps it was a minor order, similar to acolyte or reader. It seems to be a minor order even today in the Coptic Orthodox Church.
One is mentioned in the scripture. There may have been dozens who weren't. There were 72 'sent out' in two's. Apostle means 'sent' by Christ. Some of those 72 'sent' by Christ were probably married couples, like possibly the two on the road to Emmaus. The fact that we hear nothing of any of those 70 in scripture mentioned later on in scripture does not disqualify any of them as apostles, 'sent'. .
No Peter had a wife! Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas? (1 Cor 9:5). Ps. you may have to do something that may be hard for some younger people-Don't just look at the words but the punctuation as well.
I thought you might be implying that Peter's wife had died. No! I imported my sense of humour from Germany.
Thank you fellas for this demonstration of the deficiencies inherent in internet communication. Irony is difficult to detect when body language and intonation are absent and no visual clues exist to indicate important information to participants a conversation. It also illustrates the error committed by those who would ban women's sacerdotal ministry merely on the absence of specific evidence of it in scripture. Why SHOULD there be evidence of it in scripture? Scripture is lacking in much that we might wish to know. It only contains what we need to know concerning what Jesus The Christ has accomplished on our behalf. Why should evidence of it in scripture be needed before the church should be permitted to validate the discipleship and worthiness of women chosen and ordained by God to fulfil the functions of New Testament style priests? Does the complete lack of any specific evidence in holy scripture, of women ever having received communion prevent them from doing so, in any denomination of the Christian church? I think not. No scriptural evidence is needed to establish their absolute right to receive bread and wine, the spiritual body and blood of their and our saviour, along with us men in the church. The argument - 'You can't do it because God didn't put it in the bible', is the most spurious one of all false reasoning. 'Jesus didn't have any female apostles', runs a close second in the 'logical' reasoning of fools. .
Does anyone truly think they will change another person's mind on this matter from what is discussed on this forum after so long with the question being open ? And, by the way, I am one of those "fools".
Many have changed their minds after due consideration of aspects of the issue which had not occurred to them previously. All human beings are capable of having entrenched attitudes and opinions until released from them. Thet's why Jesus told so many stories. Jesus of Nazareth would never have bothered teaching ANYTHING at all during his three year ministry on earth had be not been convinced that human beings were also fully capable of changing their attitudes and opinions. If it were not so, no one could ever be 'saved', because repentance itself is ALL ABOUT changing one's attitudes and opinions and whole LIFE'S direction. .
The word apostle means "one who is sent" but the 12 Apostles; the 11 Apostles remaining after Judas's betrayal plus Paul; are distinguished as being commissioned by Jesus himself, and were held in high regard. There were likely other apostles and one way to distinguish them is to Capitalise the first group. Junia is mentioned in Romans 16:7 as being "outstanding among the apostles" (NIV) although it appears to be unclear whether means she was an apostle or whether she was highly regarded by the apostles; nor is it clear whether they were apostles or Apostles. If she was an apostle she may have witnessed to women but not have held a position as Elder or Bishop in the church. It is a pretty vague reference to build a case on without other evidence. Luke 10:1 "After this the Lord appointed seventy-two others and sent them two by two ahead of him to every town and place where he was about to go." The text is silent as to whether these included any married couples. At best we could say it is possible, not that it is probable. Of the two on the road to Emmaus, one is identified as Cleopas, a man, the other is not identified. Again it is possible but not probable that the other is a woman.
We do have an example of women being baptised in Acts 8:12 "But when they believed Philip as he proclaimed the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women." If baptised would the Lord's supper be withheld? There is reference to the entire congregation taking part in the Lord's Supper without any indication that women were excluded. The Fractio Panis fresco, early 100’s, shows at least one woman amongst the participants. However on the question of women in positions of authority God DID put it in the Bible. " I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man". Well of the twelve he did appoint, none were women; although he did have female disciples. Call me a fool then.
There is no specific mention in the bible of women receiving communion. But this fact does not exclude them from doing so. That is the point. I wasn't suggesting they should not be allowed. 1 Timothy 2:12. God didn't "Put it in the Bible". Men put it in the bible, or more accurately A MAN put it in a letter, which was later on, put in the Bible, because the men in the church, at the time it was decided that 1 Timothy should be included in the bible, mostly thought this was actually written by an Apostle and you probably still do. That 'fact' is now a matter of considerable doubt. It is more likely the written opinion of a pseudepigrahical misogynist in the early apostolic church, not an apostle at all. I don't think this was written by St Paul, and I don't have to as a tenet of 'the faith'. The fact that none were women is not evidence that Jesus Christ didn't want women apostles or wouldn't have them. He just chose twelve men. Jesus chose only twelve not because he couldn't have found or chosen others, but simply because Jesus stopped at TWELVE. There were probably no women simply because he had already chosen twelve men. There were not more than twelve men simply because Jesus stopped choosing apostles when he reached the number 12. Were there more than 12 people in that place when he chose the 12? Scripture seems to indicate there were. Matt. 10:1-6, and Mar. 3:13-21, and Mar. 6:7-13, and Luke 6:12-15, and Luke 9:1-6, and Luke 24:1-12. So twelve was merely a symbolically representative number, probably metaphorically signifying the twelve tribes of Israel. There was probably a much higher numeral limit to the actual number of those 'sent' by Jesus, and those having 'seen' Jesus, after his resurrection, both being stated qualifications of "AN Apostle" by Peter, himself an apostle. Who were 'All the rest' in Luke 24:1-12? Acts 1:21–22 states that for a man to be an apostle, he had to have been a member of the band of disciples from the beginning, and to have been an eyewitness of Christ's resurrection. Later on, when Jesus called Paul to be an additional apostle, these qualifications had to be modified. As it says here: - "So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection.” And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also called Justus, and Matthias. So for Paul to become an apostle the stipulation that (they must have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us) got dropped. If that got dropped, why not the other requirement that all apostles HAD to be men? If that's what Peter actually intended to say, and of course he most likely actually didn't? He just meant that up til then they just all happened to BE men. But it was not Jesus Christ that had stipulated that only MEN could become witnesses to HIS resurrection. It was Peter, a MAN who presumed that Judas Iscariot, also a MAN, would necessarily HAVE to be replaced by another MAN. Rather than any one of the WOMEN who had actually TOLD him of the resurrection because THEY, mere women, had actually witnessed it, AND HE, along with all the other male apostles, DIDN'T believe them, because they were just women. Some of these women may have even been in the very same room along with him, and had actually been the very FIRST witnesses to Christ's resurrection, and yet Peter, (being still fairly ignorantly uninspired at the time, this being before the outpouring of The Holy Spirit, enabling him to apprehend complicated truth), only looked around the gathered assembly and could only come up with two MEN who fortunately had also "witnessed Christ's resurrection.” Though they are not mentioned in scripture by name, like 'Mary Mag′dalene and Jo-an′na and Mary the mother of James and the other women with them', as actually having seen the resurrected Christ themselves. That is an accurate indication of the level of unconscious misogyny in the room at the time, little wonder they refused to believe the women's testimony of the message Christ had entrusted to them. Acts 1:1-5 clearly indicates that there were many more than just 12 Apostles and many were actually women. To assert that there were only ever 12 'apostles', and they were all chosen BECAUSE they were men, and not women, is utterly foolish for the following reasons: The death of Judas Iscariot reduced the number Jesus had originally 'chosen' to only 11. Jesus COULD have chosen 13 and then ended up with 12, if that was all he actually wanted. But Judas was replaced by one of two other fully qualified 'Apostles' who were witnesses to Christ's resurrection. That brings the number back to 13 but in addition to this we have St. Paul's conversion, who also witnessed Christ's resurrection on the road to Damascus, (unless you wish to disqualify him from apostleship, just as many others in the church tried to do). All these just HAPPENED to be men, but the qualification for BEING regarded as an apostle was evidently to have witnessed the resurrected Christ, SO - 1 Cor. 15:6 (It's most unlikely that all 500 'brethren' were male. We know there were many female disciples and many of those witnessed the resurrected Christ). Acts 1:1-5 and Luke 24:33. How many might 'those who were with the 11' have been and could they have been female disciples. Quite probably, since it's not mentioned that they were, women were rarely noticed. It wasn't just the 11 in the upper room who were witnesses to Christ's Resurrection. Luke 24:36-49. Many 'apostles' were actually 'chosen' and 'sent' by Christ. Luke 10:1-11. Many 'apostles' were witnesses to the resurrected Christ, both male and female. It was to the women that Christ chose to reveal himself to first, after his resurrection, and therefore to WOMEN that he entrusted to task of teaching the MEN, that HE had risen from the dead. Scripture records the fact that the women faithfully performed their duty, but the MEN failed Christ by their unbelief of the message Christ had sent through the women. An attitude typical of the author of 1 Tim. 2:12, whoever he may have been.
A survey reveals nothing. It's just another piece of data that, if not taken in context, can mean anything. Furthermore, if the majority opinion were true, then was Christ guilty?