Posted on 03/29/2024 8:27:53 PM PDT by Morgana
In a recent “sermon,” false teacher Ashley Wilkerson, the self-described “pastor” of Pacific Coast Church posited an extraordinary claim—that the early church was teeming with female apostles whose names were subsequently altered in Scripture to mask their identities and contributions as women. This assertion, while striking, is completely absurd and crumbles under the weight of scriptural fidelity, historical scrutiny, and orthodox understanding.
Firstly, the apostolic office, as delineated in the New Testament, is not a title bestowed lightly. It is marked by direct commissioning by Christ Himself or, as seen in Paul’s case, a clear, divine calling. The primary roles of an apostle included witnessing Christ’s resurrection and teaching with authority conferred by Jesus. To suggest a widespread alteration of Scripture to exclude women from this office is just silly. The office is God-ordained, not humanly manipulated.
Secondly, the historical transmission of the biblical texts does not support Wilkerson’s assertion. The painstaking process of copying manuscripts across centuries was undergirded by a reverence for the Word’s sanctity and an understanding of its divine inspiration. While no historical process is perfect, the suggestion of a deliberate, systematic effort to alter apostolic names and genders lacks both evidence and credibility. The reliability of the scriptural manuscripts, confirmed by countless scholars and textual critics, stands in direct opposition to the idea of such conspiratorial alterations.
To imply that recognition of women’s roles requires altering scriptural identity is to overlook the profound contributions of women as recorded in the Scriptures themselves. Women like Phoebe and Priscilla were indeed important contributors to the early church’s growth and vibrancy. Their roles as supporters and servants are just as important within the New Testament without the need for alteration or misrepresentation.
Wilkerson’s error lies not in acknowledging the significant contributions of women to the early Christian church but in proposing a narrative of deliberate scriptural alteration that undercuts the integrity of the biblical text and the providence of its preservation. Such claims detract from the unity and truth of the gospel and women such as Wilkerson who pervert the gospel, undermine the integrity of God’s word, and make such outlandish claims should be marked and avoided.
VIDEO ON LINK
Why??? Because he said he was.
That is why they call it faith, and more power to you to believe what you want.
“We have no primary sources.”
Agreed that the Bible needs to be taken on faith, including on who wrote the gospels. But looking into the books and authors, there is evidence which backs up the accepted writers and dates.
One example:
The early church is unanimous in their acceptance of Matthew as the writer of the First Gospel. Papias, Irenaeus, Pantaenus, and Origen all report Matthew as the writer of the First Gospel.
Papias (c. AD 60-130) writes, “Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could.”
Regarding the date Matthew was written, it was probably before 70 AD when the temple was destroyed as Matthew did not mention it.
Also - why make up a book and say it was written by Matthew? A tax collector of all things and hated by the Jews?
Are you seriously claiming that any of the Apostles were alive in 150 AD?
And no, you are wrong. The 4 gospels were written while witnesses of Jesus and his ministry were still around to talk about it. Most of the letters to the churches were written by the Apostles or people anointed by them in the first 5 - 10 years.
How true. The four Gospels, Acts, and all of Paul’s Letters were accepted as Canon by the majority of the Church by 200 AD.
It is not a historical fact that Constantine founded any Christian church. It is an ahistorical lie that is easily refuted by the record we have. The Christian church has a history, and there are volumes of Christian writings that precede the time of Constantine and the Council of Nicea. And the records we have of the Council of Nicea refer to that history and show Constantine as gathering the preexisting Christian bishops to hash out a doctrinal controversy. You can’t have a doctrinal controversy without having a preexisting doctrine and church.
You have been spewing a lot of nonsense on this thread without addressing, for example the writings of the Apostolic Fathers dating from the late first century and very early second which are already seen quoting most of the New Testament books. There are hundreds of pages of this material, let alone the thousands of pages by Christian writers in the following two centuries which quote the books of the Bible even more frequently and extensively as they attempt to understand and apply the Biblical doctrine to their lives and the lives of the people who heard them and read their writings. For a little light reading, try the public domain English Translation of the Ante-Nicean Fathers by Shaff.
We also have fragments of books of the New Testament, specifically the gospel of John, dated as early as 125 to 150 AD. There are also multiple artifacts during this time period of Christian art and worship places, as well as a number of non-Christian references to Christ and Christians during this time.
Your assertion that none of this actually existed despite the evidence for it is absurd and if actually made in good faith, shows an abysmal ignorance of the historical record we have.
Even Bart Ehrman an atheist scholar states the crucifixion of Christ is an indisputable historic fact and that one of the earliest Christian Creeds can be dated to before 40AD
Most of the letters to the churches were written by the Apostles or people anointed by them.
What churches??anointed?? None of the writings were acknowledge by anyone except by emperor Constantine until
300 AD and no they were not written by the apostles. Read what the bible says. The book according to John or who ever. According to, that mean he did not write it. It is a retold story.
You just proved my point if you read what you just posted,125-150 AD, thats is quite a while to write something after some one has been dead for 150 years.
That is just flat out wrong. Paul wrote from 50-60AD. There were Churches all over Asia Minor before 100 AD. Constantine himself did nothing, the Canon was all but established by 300AD. The main debate was over books like Revelation, James and 3rd John. The council of Nicea was about settling the argument over the nature of Christ. ie the hypostatic union.
And Jesus was married to Mary Magdaline too.
I did not say it did not exist, I said there is no first hand writings that it happened the way depicted. Stories change after a 125 years.
And Paul did not even know Jesus, never met him.
Back in 150AD it would take months to travel from one part of the empire to another. It would also take months to make just one copy of a book. By already have copies all over the empire it means we can push back the date by at least 50 years. Further the dead sea scrolls push the OT canon back to the 1st century AD
He knew Christians and sought to kill them. If he is already establishing the divinity of Christ in 60AD it means Christians were doing the same. Paul also mentions Peter in 1Corinthians.
How about Matthew, Peter, and John? If I am not mistaken, they wrote stuff too. 😆 I heard John Mark (the Gospel) wrote what Peter dictated to him.
Noah's Ark is a religious myth that is part of the biblical canons of both Christianity and Judaism as well as being an important story in other traditional Abrahamic religions, especially Islam. As such, many scholars think that the Noah's Ark flood myth may in fact be derived from older Mesopotamian stories.
Interesting.
Listen, I m not saying Christ did not exist, it is a matter of fact that he did. All I am saying is there is a lot of story telling going on in the bible of the NT as well as the OT. And yes even back then , politics were involved.
If only the library of Alexandria would not have been destroyed, tin foil hat time , but, knowledge is power.
No these are the earliest handwritten copies that have survived throughout the centuries. There is a lot of evidence involved in dating the New Testament texts but even the most skeptical scholars grant that a number of the books were written in the first century within a couple of decades after Jesus’ death, claiming that others were not written until the second. Their evidence is weak, in my opinion, and the early statements of the church fathers place all of the New Testament writings in the first century.
You on the other hand were saying that Constantine just made them up and started Christianity and the church in the fourth century. If the copies were already there as well as numerous references to them and Christian activity in general as of the beginning of the second century, you are refuted.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.