what are your thoughts of Apostle Kathryn Krick
- Thread starter CS1
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
mheh
Miss Kate is one thing, but have you seen the dude in that video that she says has made her what she is? she says she is nothing without him and God has shown her he will be the one to bring revival to the US
I'm not sure that video is still available...I watched it on the youtube channel, but this group is apparently going private now that folks are in their business
boy I would like to say more.....
Miss Kate is one thing, but have you seen the dude in that video that she says has made her what she is? she says she is nothing without him and God has shown her he will be the one to bring revival to the US
I'm not sure that video is still available...I watched it on the youtube channel, but this group is apparently going private now that folks are in their business
boy I would like to say more.....
In the end the Lord will have to deliver them. The blasphemer who calls himself a prophet of prophets who proclaimed Kathryn an apostle is an accomplished and gifted man who is going to find that an Elijah will take him to the mountain and make the division.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
From Danial B Wallace
Junia Among the Apostles: The Double Identification Problem in Romans 16:7
In Rom 16:7 Paul says, “Greet Andronicus and Junia(s), my compatriots and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to [or prominent among] the apostles, and they were in Christ before me.” There are two major interpretive problems in this verse, both of which involve the identification of Junia(s). (a) Is Junia(s) a man’s name or a woman’s name? (b) What is this individual’s relation to the apostles?
Is “Junia(s)” Male or Female?
If ᾿Ιουνιαν should have the circumflex over the ultima ( ᾿Ιουνιᾶν) then it is a man’s name; if it should have the acute accent over the penult ( ᾿Ιουνίαν) then it is a woman’s name. For help, we need to look in several places. First, we should consider the accents on the Greek manuscripts. This will be of limited value since they were not added until the ninth century to the NT manuscripts. Thus, their ability to reflect earlier opinions is questionable at best. Nevertheless, they are usually decent indicators as to the opinion in the ninth century. And what they reveal is that ᾿Ιουνιαν was largely considered a man’s name (for the bulk of the MSS have the circumflex over the ultima).1
Second, somewhat contradictory evidence is found in the church fathers: an almost universal sense that this was a woman’s name surfaces—at least through the twelfth century. Nevertheless, this must be couched tentatively because although at least seventeen fathers discuss the issue (see Fitzmyer’s commentary on Romans for the data), the majority of these are Latin fathers. The importance of that fact is related to the following point.
Third, another consideration has to do with the frequency of this word as a man’s or a woman’s name. On the one hand, no instances of Junias as a man’s name have surfaced to date in Greek literature, while at least three instances of Junia as a woman’s name have appeared in Greek. Further, Junia was a common enough Latin name and, since this was Paul’s letter to the Romans, one might expect to see a few Latin names on the list. But even the data on this score can be deceptive, for the man’s name Junianas was frequent enough in Latin and Greek writings (and, from my cursory examination of Latin materials, the nickname Iunias also occurred as a masculine name on occasion2). What still needs to be examined is the control group: that is, are the other nicknames found in the NT (such as Silas, Epaphras) all exampled in extra-biblical literature? I don’t know the answer to that; to my knowledge no one has done an exhaustive search of the data for all the names of people in the NT (though Lampe has done something fairly close to this, but I have not yet seen his work on “Roman Christians”). In the least, the data on whether ᾿Ιουνιαν is feminine or masculine are simply inadequate to make a decisive judgment, though what minimal data we do have suggests a feminine name. Although most modern translations regard the name as masculine, the data simply do not yield themselves in this direction. And although we are dealing with scanty material, it is always safest to base one’s views on actual evidence rather than mere opinion.3
What is Junia’s Relation to the Apostles?
Although the vast bulk of commentaries and translations regard Junia(s) to be one of the apostles (in a non-technical sense), such a view is based on less than adequate evidence. At present, I am involved in a search of the key term in Romans 16:7 that would help us decide this issue—ἐπίσημος. Using the TLG database (which now incorporates all Greek literature from Homer to AD 600 and most Greek literature from AD 600 to 1453), as well as the PHI CD of Greek non-literary papyri, we are able to scan over 100 million words of Greek. Not all of the relevant materials have yet been translated, but of what has a certain pattern has developed.
At issue is whether we should translate the phrase in Romans 16:7—ἐπίσημος ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις—as “outstanding among the apostles” or “well known to the apostles.” Although almost all translations assume the first rendering, this is by no means a given. Even in a meticulous commentary such as Fitzmyer’s, though both options are discussed, no evidence is supplied for either. But the evidence is out there; mere opinion is inadequate.
In order to resolve this issue two items need to be examined. First is the lexical field of the adjective ἐπίσημος. Second is the syntactical implication of this adjective in collocation with ἐν plus the dative.
First, for the lexical issue. ἐπίσημος can mean “well known, prominent, outstanding, famous, notable, notorious” (BAGD 298 s.v. ἐπίσημος; LSJ 655-56; LN 28.31). The lexical domain can roughly be broken down into two streams: ἐπίσημος is used either in an implied comparative sense (“prominent, outstanding [among]”) or in an elative sense (“famous, well known [to]”).
Second, the key to determining the meaning of the term in any given passage is both the general context and the specific collocation of this word with its adjuncts. Hence, we turn to the ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις. As a working hypothesis, we would suggest the following. Since a noun in the genitive is typically used with comparative adjectives, we might expect such with an implied comparison. Thus, if in Rom 16:7 Paul meant to say that Andronicus and Junia were outstanding among the apostles, we might have expected him to use the genitive4 τῶν ἀποστόλων. On the other hand, if an elative force is suggested—i.e., where no comparison is even hinted at—we might expect ἐν + the dative.
As an aside, some commentators reject such an elative sense in this passage because of the collocation with the preposition ἐν,5 but such a view is based on a misperception of the force of the whole construction. On the one hand, there is a legitimate complaint about seeing ἐν with dative as indicating an agent , and to the extent that “well known by the apostles” implies an action on the apostles’ part (viz., that the apostles know) such an objection has merit.6 On the other hand, the idea of something being known by someone else does not necessarily imply agency. This is so for two reasons. First, the action implied may actually be the passive reception of some event or person (thus, texts such as 1 Tim 3:16, in which the line ὤφθη ἀγγέλοις can be translated either as “was seen by angels” or “appeared to angels”; either way the “action” performed by angels is by its very nature relatively passive). Such an idea can be easily accommodated in Rom 16:7: “well known to/by the apostles” simply says that the apostles were recipients of information, not that they actively performed “knowing.” Thus, although ἐν plus a personal dative does not indicate agency, in collocation with words of perception, (ἐν plus) dative personal nouns are often used to show the recipients. In this instance, the idea would then be “well known to the apostles.” Second, even if ἐν with the dative plural is used in the sense of “among” (so Moo here, et alii), this does not necessarily locate Andronicus and Junia within the band of apostles; rather, it is just as likely that knowledge of them existed among the apostles.
Turning to the actual data, we notice the following. When a comparative notion is seen, that to which ἐπίσημος is compared is frequently, if not usually, put in the genitive case. For example, in 3 Macc 6:1 we read Ελεαζαρος δέ τις ἀνὴρ ἐπίσημος τῶν ἀπὸ τής χώρας ἱερέων (“Eleazar, a man prominent among the priests of the country”). Here Eleazar was one of the priests of the country, yet was comparatively oustanding in their midst. The genitive is used for the implied comparison (τῶν ἱερέων). In Ps Sol 17:30 the idea is very clear that the Messiah would “glorify the Lord in a prominent [place] in relation to all the earth” (τὸν κύριον δοξάσει ἐν ἐπισήμῳ πάσης τῆς γῆς). The prominent place is a part of the earth, indicated by the genitive modifier. Martyrdom of Polycarp 14:1 speaks of an “outstanding ram from a great flock” (κριὸς ἐπίσημος ἐκ μεγάλου). Here ἐκ plus the genitive is used instead of the simple genitive, perhaps to suggest the ablative notion over the partitive, since this ram was chosen for sacrifice (and thus would soon be separated from the flock). But again, the salient features are present: (a) an implied comparison (b) of an item within a larger group, (c) followed by (ἐκ plus) the genitive to specify the group to which it belongs.7
When, however, an elative notion is found, ἐν plus a personal plural dative is not uncommon. In Ps Sol 2:6, where the Jewish captives are in view, the writer indicates that “they were a spectacle among the gentiles” (ἐπισήμῳ ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν). This construction comes as close to Rom 16:7 as any I have yet seen. The parallels include (a) people as the referent of the adjective ἐπίσημος, (b) followed by ἐν plus the dative plural, (c) the dative plural referring to people as well. All the key elements are here. Semantically, what is significant is that (a) the first group is not a part of the second—that is, the Jewish captives were not gentiles; and (b) what was ‘among’ the gentiles was the Jews’ notoriety. This is precisely how we are suggesting Rom 16:7 should be taken. That the parallels discovered so far8 conform to our working hypothesis at least gives warrant to seeing Andronicus’ and Junia’s fame as that which was among the apostles. Whether the alternative view has semantic plausibility remains to be seen.
In sum, until further evidence is produced that counters the working hypothesis, we must conclude that Andronicus and Junia were not apostles, but were known to the apostles. To be sure, our conclusion is tentative. But it is always safer to stand on the side of some evidence than on the side of none at all.
Junia Among the Apostles: The Double Identification Problem in Romans 16:7
In Rom 16:7 Paul says, “Greet Andronicus and Junia(s), my compatriots and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to [or prominent among] the apostles, and they were in Christ before me.” There are two major interpretive problems in this verse, both of which involve the identification of Junia(s). (a) Is Junia(s) a man’s name or a woman’s name? (b) What is this individual’s relation to the apostles?
Is “Junia(s)” Male or Female?
If ᾿Ιουνιαν should have the circumflex over the ultima ( ᾿Ιουνιᾶν) then it is a man’s name; if it should have the acute accent over the penult ( ᾿Ιουνίαν) then it is a woman’s name. For help, we need to look in several places. First, we should consider the accents on the Greek manuscripts. This will be of limited value since they were not added until the ninth century to the NT manuscripts. Thus, their ability to reflect earlier opinions is questionable at best. Nevertheless, they are usually decent indicators as to the opinion in the ninth century. And what they reveal is that ᾿Ιουνιαν was largely considered a man’s name (for the bulk of the MSS have the circumflex over the ultima).1
Second, somewhat contradictory evidence is found in the church fathers: an almost universal sense that this was a woman’s name surfaces—at least through the twelfth century. Nevertheless, this must be couched tentatively because although at least seventeen fathers discuss the issue (see Fitzmyer’s commentary on Romans for the data), the majority of these are Latin fathers. The importance of that fact is related to the following point.
Third, another consideration has to do with the frequency of this word as a man’s or a woman’s name. On the one hand, no instances of Junias as a man’s name have surfaced to date in Greek literature, while at least three instances of Junia as a woman’s name have appeared in Greek. Further, Junia was a common enough Latin name and, since this was Paul’s letter to the Romans, one might expect to see a few Latin names on the list. But even the data on this score can be deceptive, for the man’s name Junianas was frequent enough in Latin and Greek writings (and, from my cursory examination of Latin materials, the nickname Iunias also occurred as a masculine name on occasion2). What still needs to be examined is the control group: that is, are the other nicknames found in the NT (such as Silas, Epaphras) all exampled in extra-biblical literature? I don’t know the answer to that; to my knowledge no one has done an exhaustive search of the data for all the names of people in the NT (though Lampe has done something fairly close to this, but I have not yet seen his work on “Roman Christians”). In the least, the data on whether ᾿Ιουνιαν is feminine or masculine are simply inadequate to make a decisive judgment, though what minimal data we do have suggests a feminine name. Although most modern translations regard the name as masculine, the data simply do not yield themselves in this direction. And although we are dealing with scanty material, it is always safest to base one’s views on actual evidence rather than mere opinion.3
What is Junia’s Relation to the Apostles?
Although the vast bulk of commentaries and translations regard Junia(s) to be one of the apostles (in a non-technical sense), such a view is based on less than adequate evidence. At present, I am involved in a search of the key term in Romans 16:7 that would help us decide this issue—ἐπίσημος. Using the TLG database (which now incorporates all Greek literature from Homer to AD 600 and most Greek literature from AD 600 to 1453), as well as the PHI CD of Greek non-literary papyri, we are able to scan over 100 million words of Greek. Not all of the relevant materials have yet been translated, but of what has a certain pattern has developed.
At issue is whether we should translate the phrase in Romans 16:7—ἐπίσημος ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις—as “outstanding among the apostles” or “well known to the apostles.” Although almost all translations assume the first rendering, this is by no means a given. Even in a meticulous commentary such as Fitzmyer’s, though both options are discussed, no evidence is supplied for either. But the evidence is out there; mere opinion is inadequate.
In order to resolve this issue two items need to be examined. First is the lexical field of the adjective ἐπίσημος. Second is the syntactical implication of this adjective in collocation with ἐν plus the dative.
First, for the lexical issue. ἐπίσημος can mean “well known, prominent, outstanding, famous, notable, notorious” (BAGD 298 s.v. ἐπίσημος; LSJ 655-56; LN 28.31). The lexical domain can roughly be broken down into two streams: ἐπίσημος is used either in an implied comparative sense (“prominent, outstanding [among]”) or in an elative sense (“famous, well known [to]”).
Second, the key to determining the meaning of the term in any given passage is both the general context and the specific collocation of this word with its adjuncts. Hence, we turn to the ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις. As a working hypothesis, we would suggest the following. Since a noun in the genitive is typically used with comparative adjectives, we might expect such with an implied comparison. Thus, if in Rom 16:7 Paul meant to say that Andronicus and Junia were outstanding among the apostles, we might have expected him to use the genitive4 τῶν ἀποστόλων. On the other hand, if an elative force is suggested—i.e., where no comparison is even hinted at—we might expect ἐν + the dative.
As an aside, some commentators reject such an elative sense in this passage because of the collocation with the preposition ἐν,5 but such a view is based on a misperception of the force of the whole construction. On the one hand, there is a legitimate complaint about seeing ἐν with dative as indicating an agent , and to the extent that “well known by the apostles” implies an action on the apostles’ part (viz., that the apostles know) such an objection has merit.6 On the other hand, the idea of something being known by someone else does not necessarily imply agency. This is so for two reasons. First, the action implied may actually be the passive reception of some event or person (thus, texts such as 1 Tim 3:16, in which the line ὤφθη ἀγγέλοις can be translated either as “was seen by angels” or “appeared to angels”; either way the “action” performed by angels is by its very nature relatively passive). Such an idea can be easily accommodated in Rom 16:7: “well known to/by the apostles” simply says that the apostles were recipients of information, not that they actively performed “knowing.” Thus, although ἐν plus a personal dative does not indicate agency, in collocation with words of perception, (ἐν plus) dative personal nouns are often used to show the recipients. In this instance, the idea would then be “well known to the apostles.” Second, even if ἐν with the dative plural is used in the sense of “among” (so Moo here, et alii), this does not necessarily locate Andronicus and Junia within the band of apostles; rather, it is just as likely that knowledge of them existed among the apostles.
Turning to the actual data, we notice the following. When a comparative notion is seen, that to which ἐπίσημος is compared is frequently, if not usually, put in the genitive case. For example, in 3 Macc 6:1 we read Ελεαζαρος δέ τις ἀνὴρ ἐπίσημος τῶν ἀπὸ τής χώρας ἱερέων (“Eleazar, a man prominent among the priests of the country”). Here Eleazar was one of the priests of the country, yet was comparatively oustanding in their midst. The genitive is used for the implied comparison (τῶν ἱερέων). In Ps Sol 17:30 the idea is very clear that the Messiah would “glorify the Lord in a prominent [place] in relation to all the earth” (τὸν κύριον δοξάσει ἐν ἐπισήμῳ πάσης τῆς γῆς). The prominent place is a part of the earth, indicated by the genitive modifier. Martyrdom of Polycarp 14:1 speaks of an “outstanding ram from a great flock” (κριὸς ἐπίσημος ἐκ μεγάλου). Here ἐκ plus the genitive is used instead of the simple genitive, perhaps to suggest the ablative notion over the partitive, since this ram was chosen for sacrifice (and thus would soon be separated from the flock). But again, the salient features are present: (a) an implied comparison (b) of an item within a larger group, (c) followed by (ἐκ plus) the genitive to specify the group to which it belongs.7
When, however, an elative notion is found, ἐν plus a personal plural dative is not uncommon. In Ps Sol 2:6, where the Jewish captives are in view, the writer indicates that “they were a spectacle among the gentiles” (ἐπισήμῳ ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν). This construction comes as close to Rom 16:7 as any I have yet seen. The parallels include (a) people as the referent of the adjective ἐπίσημος, (b) followed by ἐν plus the dative plural, (c) the dative plural referring to people as well. All the key elements are here. Semantically, what is significant is that (a) the first group is not a part of the second—that is, the Jewish captives were not gentiles; and (b) what was ‘among’ the gentiles was the Jews’ notoriety. This is precisely how we are suggesting Rom 16:7 should be taken. That the parallels discovered so far8 conform to our working hypothesis at least gives warrant to seeing Andronicus’ and Junia’s fame as that which was among the apostles. Whether the alternative view has semantic plausibility remains to be seen.
In sum, until further evidence is produced that counters the working hypothesis, we must conclude that Andronicus and Junia were not apostles, but were known to the apostles. To be sure, our conclusion is tentative. But it is always safer to stand on the side of some evidence than on the side of none at all.
There are many problems with using Romans 16:7 as evidence that Junia was an apostle, two of which are:
1. The only way to tell the difference between the masculine and feminine form of Junia are accent marks. For the first 900 years of the transmission of the text there were no accent marks. Someone just eventually decided it should be feminine and accented it so. That's why we have the feminine form today. This was probably based on the theory that as Priscilla and Aquila (v.3) were a married couple, so Andronicus and Junia were husband and wife. But there's not a shred of proof to back up this theory.
2. Romans 16:7 is the one and only scripture that even remotely (very remotely, imo) suggests that Junia (Ἰουνίαν, Iounian) was a female apostle, and it's in a greeting at the close of a letter; this smacks of real desperation on the part of those who are pushing this theory. That's it; it's all they have.
The bottom line is Romans 16:7 doesn't offer anything to base sound teaching on. It's an open question and anyone who makes claims one way or the other is wasting their breath. Give me something more solid that says women were apostles in the formative years of the body and maybe I'll listen.
I'm not a huge James White fan but this video is actually very good.
1. The only way to tell the difference between the masculine and feminine form of Junia are accent marks. For the first 900 years of the transmission of the text there were no accent marks. Someone just eventually decided it should be feminine and accented it so. That's why we have the feminine form today. This was probably based on the theory that as Priscilla and Aquila (v.3) were a married couple, so Andronicus and Junia were husband and wife. But there's not a shred of proof to back up this theory.
2. Romans 16:7 is the one and only scripture that even remotely (very remotely, imo) suggests that Junia (Ἰουνίαν, Iounian) was a female apostle, and it's in a greeting at the close of a letter; this smacks of real desperation on the part of those who are pushing this theory. That's it; it's all they have.
The bottom line is Romans 16:7 doesn't offer anything to base sound teaching on. It's an open question and anyone who makes claims one way or the other is wasting their breath. Give me something more solid that says women were apostles in the formative years of the body and maybe I'll listen.
I'm not a huge James White fan but this video is actually very good.
S
I was thinking of Elijah myself. in the OT, the Israelites were to kill all witches and not even mourn for one should it have been someone you loved. witchcraft has so many branches (as I am sure you know) and it is easy enough to practice so that some do it by ignorance...manipulation being a very much used example of such things...like casting a spell over someone's mind...and dreams are a great entry point...suggestions...etc
if I know anything, it is because I had to learn. anyway...
again
if I know anything, it is because I had to learn. anyway...
again
-
1
- Show all
FYI, sir, the woman is named in the bible and you're the one saying she is not an apostle. To say the burden of proof is on the person who is mentioned in the word of God is like saying Paul has to be here to defend HIS writing of Romans 16:7 Unless you are speaking of Kathryn Krick I agree she is not an apostle . My comment was in context to one who said there are no women apostles. Which as seen in Roman 16:7 says differently.
Romans 16:7—“Greet Andronicus and Junia, my relatives, who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles and they were in Christ before I was.”
. My comment was in context to one who said there are no women apostles. Which as seen in Roman 16:7 says differently. Romans 16:7—“Greet Andronicus and Junia, my relatives, who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles and they were in Christ before I was.”
No problem that is why I made this thread I completely agree with your position on this person.
that is why I made this thread I completely agree with your position on this person.
She’s not perfect, God doesn’t choose the perfect, God chooses the weak - the very one that will confound the wise. The very one that religious leaders will have a problem with because of Pride.
Kathryn could NOT be doing what she is doing if God was not in her and with her!
Jesus Christ changed the playing field because IN CHRIST there is NO male or female, NO Jew or Greek…
Pride and human reasoning will stumble over gender, denomination, etc.
I’m not surprised at all at your comments about her.
I absolutely believe Kathryn Krick is an apostle. God has raised her up and sent her to the frontline…even the enemies territory to deliver the captives! Hallelujah!!! Go God!!!
She’s not perfect, God doesn’t choose the perfect, God chooses the weak - the very one that will confound the wise. The very one that religious leaders will have a problem with because of Pride.
Kathryn could NOT be doing what she is doing if God was not in her and with her!
Jesus Christ changed the playing field because IN CHRIST there is NO male or female, NO Jew or Greek…
Pride and human reasoning will stumble over gender, denomination, etc.
I’m not surprised at all at your comments about her.
She’s not perfect, God doesn’t choose the perfect, God chooses the weak - the very one that will confound the wise. The very one that religious leaders will have a problem with because of Pride.
Kathryn could NOT be doing what she is doing if God was not in her and with her!
Jesus Christ changed the playing field because IN CHRIST there is NO male or female, NO Jew or Greek…
Pride and human reasoning will stumble over gender, denomination, etc.
I’m not surprised at all at your comments about her.
-
1
-
1
-
1
- Show all
S
I absolutely believe Kathryn Krick is an apostle. God has raised her up and sent her to the frontline…even the enemies territory to deliver the captives! Hallelujah!!! Go God!!!
She’s not perfect, God doesn’t choose the perfect, God chooses the weak - the very one that will confound the wise. The very one that religious leaders will have a problem with because of Pride.
Kathryn could NOT be doing what she is doing if God was not in her and with her!
Jesus Christ changed the playing field because IN CHRIST there is NO male or female, NO Jew or Greek…
Pride and human reasoning will stumble over gender, denomination, etc.
I’m not surprised at all at your comments about her.
She’s not perfect, God doesn’t choose the perfect, God chooses the weak - the very one that will confound the wise. The very one that religious leaders will have a problem with because of Pride.
Kathryn could NOT be doing what she is doing if God was not in her and with her!
Jesus Christ changed the playing field because IN CHRIST there is NO male or female, NO Jew or Greek…
Pride and human reasoning will stumble over gender, denomination, etc.
I’m not surprised at all at your comments about her.
will you also kiss the feet of the false prophet she worships should he pass close enough to you?
For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, II Timothy 4:3
itching ears desire to be massaged rather than messaged
itching ears will not accept teaching that disturbs them, but will seek out those things that will feed their own desires...from riches to love to power to the ability to manipulate and create a web of false words around those who know the warnings in scripture are real. this is a condition that is not easily surmounted and rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft
your eagerness to dismiss every warning in scripture and apply it liberally to this thread and other places, is not actually creating the profile you are attempting to wear
rather, we are looking at a person who tells others they have no relationship with God, no love and no fun in their life
these are calculated words on your part to create a false picture of those who oppose the nonsense you spout
there is more to the gifts than mumbling in tongues and lying on the floor and laughing
you appear to attempt to be prophetic, but there is no conviction in your words, which there would be should you actually be exercising said gift
please
just stop. it is embarrassing to see you go on the way you do
I shall simply say it AGAIN…
I absolutely believe Kathryn Krick is an apostle.
God has raised her up and sent her to the frontline…even the enemies territory to deliver the captives! Hallelujah!!! Go God!!!
She’s not perfect, God doesn’t choose the perfect, God chooses the weak - the very one that will confound the wise. The very one that religious leaders will have a problem with because of Pride.
Kathryn could NOT be doing what she is doing if God was not in her and with her!
Jesus Christ changed the playing field because IN CHRIST there is NO male or female, NO Jew or Greek…
Pride and human reasoning will stumble over gender, denomination, etc.
I’m not surprised at all at your comments about her.
Amen and Amen.
I absolutely believe Kathryn Krick is an apostle.
God has raised her up and sent her to the frontline…even the enemies territory to deliver the captives! Hallelujah!!! Go God!!!
She’s not perfect, God doesn’t choose the perfect, God chooses the weak - the very one that will confound the wise. The very one that religious leaders will have a problem with because of Pride.
Kathryn could NOT be doing what she is doing if God was not in her and with her!
Jesus Christ changed the playing field because IN CHRIST there is NO male or female, NO Jew or Greek…
Pride and human reasoning will stumble over gender, denomination, etc.
I’m not surprised at all at your comments about her.
Amen and Amen.
I absolutely believe Kathryn Krick is an apostle. God has raised her up and sent her to the frontline…even the enemies territory to deliver the captives! Hallelujah!!! Go God!!!
She’s not perfect, God doesn’t choose the perfect, God chooses the weak - the very one that will confound the wise. The very one that religious leaders will have a problem with because of Pride.
Kathryn could NOT be doing what she is doing if God was not in her and with her!
Jesus Christ changed the playing field because IN CHRIST there is NO male or female, NO Jew or Greek…
Pride and human reasoning will stumble over gender, denomination, etc.
I’m not surprised at all at your comments about her.
She’s not perfect, God doesn’t choose the perfect, God chooses the weak - the very one that will confound the wise. The very one that religious leaders will have a problem with because of Pride.
Kathryn could NOT be doing what she is doing if God was not in her and with her!
Jesus Christ changed the playing field because IN CHRIST there is NO male or female, NO Jew or Greek…
Pride and human reasoning will stumble over gender, denomination, etc.
I’m not surprised at all at your comments about her.
I am not here to change your mind all I can tell you is 1. I listen to her teaching of Christians being demon-possessed, 2. Generational curses of Christians. I personally made contact with her to ask some questions about her teaching which she did not reply. I care less if she calls herself an apostle, evangelist, or prophet. The work she does and her teaching MUST be Biblical.
We are to judge that as 1cor chapter 14 tells us to do.
1. it is unbiblical and error to teach Christians can be demon-possessed. 2. it is unbiblical to teach Christians are held to generational curses. These teaching were very popular in the 1990s and 2000's One major teacher of this was a guy from Oregon portland. I forget his name.
-
1
- Show all
S
I shall simply say it AGAIN…
I absolutely believe Kathryn Krick is an apostle.
God has raised her up and sent her to the frontline…even the enemies territory to deliver the captives! Hallelujah!!! Go God!!!
She’s not perfect, God doesn’t choose the perfect, God chooses the weak - the very one that will confound the wise. The very one that religious leaders will have a problem with because of Pride.
Kathryn could NOT be doing what she is doing if God was not in her and with her!
Jesus Christ changed the playing field because IN CHRIST there is NO male or female, NO Jew or Greek…
Pride and human reasoning will stumble over gender, denomination, etc.
I’m not surprised at all at your comments about her.
Amen and Amen.
I absolutely believe Kathryn Krick is an apostle.
God has raised her up and sent her to the frontline…even the enemies territory to deliver the captives! Hallelujah!!! Go God!!!
She’s not perfect, God doesn’t choose the perfect, God chooses the weak - the very one that will confound the wise. The very one that religious leaders will have a problem with because of Pride.
Kathryn could NOT be doing what she is doing if God was not in her and with her!
Jesus Christ changed the playing field because IN CHRIST there is NO male or female, NO Jew or Greek…
Pride and human reasoning will stumble over gender, denomination, etc.
I’m not surprised at all at your comments about her.
Amen and Amen.
confusion can sometimes be right if the desired result warrants it
Kathryn is doing what exactly? you seem very concerned with pride. sometimes pride parades as a humble spirit but it is a spirit nonetheless
the playing field? I have not made one objection to her sex...I am a woman myself...so there goes that false flag
we are one in Christ, but the sex one is born with is not interchangeable with the other. and yes, there are but 2
the devil can create miracles...so called...I have seen a self declared witch hold his hand in flames with no ill result ... I mean he held it there long enough to create 3rd degree burns and that is minor compared to what is going on with Kate
I don't reason with my mind...I renew my mind as God both provides and allows and I use my spirit to worship Him as he has said that is what is acceptable to Him. I pray in the spirit and I have experienced a few other gifts of the Spirit of God as He has seen fit
perfect? well hardly...only in Christ thank you. as for Miss Kate, she can walk in the air and on water and I will not see God in it
I absolutely believe Kathryn Krick is an apostle.
-
1
- Show all
Okay, so you see the problem. Since there was no KJV, the apostles would not have taught this doctrine. It's a new doctrine, not taught in the Bible the prophets and apostles wrote. And what does it lead to-- basically believing the canon of scripture was defacto open until 1611?
It also doesn't make sense.
I just recently shared a message on how people ought to be careful about what they say about God. Job's friends weren't. We should be careful about attributing words, ideas, etc. to the Father, or the Son.... or the Spirit. If the Lord did not say it, we should not say that He did. You have no right to say what Jesus would do about something if it has not been revealed.
Do you think the apostles and early saints in the church followed the broad way 'that leadeth to destruction'? If the apostles followed the wide path that went to destruction, why would Jesus say they would sit on 'twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel'. Your theory doesn't fit what the Bible says, even if you read the KJV translation of it.
It is wiser to take each case individually to study and see which, if either, translation is right when there is a discrepancy.
I like the KJV for it's cadence. I memorized out of it. It's easier to memorize out of than some modern translations. There is a poetic quality to it not found in other translations. But the language is archaic and hard for a lot of people to understand, so if you are sharing the word of God you should do it in a way to edify others, in a language the other person knows (unless its tongues and someone interprets it into the language the other person knows through interpretation.) Using KJV is like almost barely speaking in tongues in a mundane non-supernatural way, without an interpretation.[/quote][/quote][/QUOTE]
It also doesn't make sense.
I just recently shared a message on how people ought to be careful about what they say about God. Job's friends weren't. We should be careful about attributing words, ideas, etc. to the Father, or the Son.... or the Spirit. If the Lord did not say it, we should not say that He did. You have no right to say what Jesus would do about something if it has not been revealed.
Do you think the apostles and early saints in the church followed the broad way 'that leadeth to destruction'? If the apostles followed the wide path that went to destruction, why would Jesus say they would sit on 'twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel'. Your theory doesn't fit what the Bible says, even if you read the KJV translation of it.
It is wiser to take each case individually to study and see which, if either, translation is right when there is a discrepancy.
I like the KJV for it's cadence. I memorized out of it. It's easier to memorize out of than some modern translations. There is a poetic quality to it not found in other translations. But the language is archaic and hard for a lot of people to understand, so if you are sharing the word of God you should do it in a way to edify others, in a language the other person knows (unless its tongues and someone interprets it into the language the other person knows through interpretation.) Using KJV is like almost barely speaking in tongues in a mundane non-supernatural way, without an interpretation.[/quote][/quote][/QUOTE]
You disagreed in a disagreeable way. The issue is not me being sensitive. It's you bickering and going loggerheads over people for nothing. There is page after page of this junk all over the forum. You argue with so many people, even people that agree with you most of the time. It is ridiculous. Why not just say 'sorry', or at least drop it, or don't stir up meaningless argument that adds nothing to the conversation in the first place.
I said I wasn't commenting on the people because I hadn't seen the video... but responded to the idea that someone might be the key to a revival in a country if God wanted to, He could reveal that plan, and you criticize me for responding without seeing the video. That's a foolish disagreement. And then you want to drag it on and on, and try to insult me as if I'm sensitive. Just behave yourself and act mature. I don't feel hurt, or sensitive, or angry. I just want you to behave and stop wasting bandwidth, people's time, and stirring up strife.
I said I wasn't commenting on the people because I hadn't seen the video... but responded to the idea that someone might be the key to a revival in a country if God wanted to, He could reveal that plan, and you criticize me for responding without seeing the video. That's a foolish disagreement. And then you want to drag it on and on, and try to insult me as if I'm sensitive. Just behave yourself and act mature. I don't feel hurt, or sensitive, or angry. I just want you to behave and stop wasting bandwidth, people's time, and stirring up strife.
Here is the definitive argument to show that women do not share in such roles as preachers or elders or apostles.
Speaking to women, Paul asks:
36Or did the word of God come originally from you? Or was it you only that it reached? 37If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord. 38But if anyone is ignorant, let him be ignorant.
The answer to these rhetorical questions is definitively NO! The word of God did not come only to the woman nor was it preached only to the woman. Women who assume such positions do so not because of what scripture teaches, but in spite of it.
Speaking to women, Paul asks:
36Or did the word of God come originally from you? Or was it you only that it reached? 37If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord. 38But if anyone is ignorant, let him be ignorant.
The answer to these rhetorical questions is definitively NO! The word of God did not come only to the woman nor was it preached only to the woman. Women who assume such positions do so not because of what scripture teaches, but in spite of it.
See, you don't know what you are talking about here. The NAR is the C. Peter Wagner movement, or a movement with other leaders associated closely to his ideas. He had this IMO fuzzy idea about apostles as leaders of denominations and fellowships of churches, even in one of his 70's books. He writes a book about churches that have 'apostles'. Some churches use the title as something like a bishop or archbishop in other denominations or traditional ecclesiology. Then people start wanting him, an academic, to lead a movement. I think they, and maybe eventually he, though he was an apostle.
A man I knew who said he met Wagner. He said he went to his HQ and said something to a secretary and ended up going into the big office and meeting Wagoner. He mentioned an 'apostle' Spain. Wagner started talking about how there was no apostle in Spain--- meaning they didn't have someone registered in their network in Spain, as if being in their network had something to do with it. The apostle this man was talking to was a church planter. This man was into planting New Testament style churches. He was surprised that Wagner seemed to think like all the apostles were on the list. He said they had an apostle in Spain. He said he knew the man. Apparently the man hadn't planted any churches based on this individual's knowledge, and he said the man had tried to take over a church.
You are thinking of Bethel. Do any of the Bethel leaders think of themselves as part of the 'New Apostolic Reformation', either the organization or the movement? The 'grave sucking' thing is something Bill Johnson addressed. He knows they get some people who are unusual there at church. He said he did not have a problem with being at a gravesite and praying that the same anointing that rested upon the person (or that God use you like that person or whatever words he used) rested on you, but did not believe in soaking up the power from the person at the grave. You could look up the interview if you want specifics. I have seen a photo of someone laying on a grave. That might have been someone who went to that Bethel church there in Redding, or it might not.
I wasn't there when the term was coined, but given that there are young people going to Bethel, 'grave sucking' might have originated as a kind of almost half-joking slang, like other terms that are used like being 'slimed' by a demon if you feel icky about a demonic presence or come under attack (which sounds to me like a reference to Ghost Busters popular culture.) I have heard 'read my mail' for cases where someone gives you an incredibly specific prophecy, and people say, "He read my mail." Just like you might hear 'pray through' as religious language in some church, church people come up with jargon. Some of it might be a little comical, like the 'Charismatic two step' to describe some people in the pews.
It is unfair to attribute something going on at Bethel to the churches and people in the NAR group. There can be some overlap, and I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the Bethel people even leadership held to an NAR idea of apostleship instead of a Biblical missiology view based on Matthew 10, parallel passages in the synoptics, and Acts 13-14 like many people do in the house church movement, part of the greather Plymouth Brethren--Little Flock-- Watchman Nee type, some in the Assemblies of God, some of the church planting movement Baptists with some relationship to the IMB, and some of the missionaries in the 10-40 window. Some NAR people may even hold to that.
I mentioned Michael Brown's article on who is in the NAR and other things along those lines. https://www.christianpost.com/voice/dispelling-myths-new-apostolic-reformation-michael-brown.html
Here is a radio show and/or podcast on it:
https://www.truthnetwork.com/show/line-of-fire-dr-michael-brown/5052/
If you ask me not to comment until I have seen the video ___when I made it clear I was not commenting on the video___, then I am going to ask you not to comment on a topic until you know what you are talking about.
A man I knew who said he met Wagner. He said he went to his HQ and said something to a secretary and ended up going into the big office and meeting Wagoner. He mentioned an 'apostle' Spain. Wagner started talking about how there was no apostle in Spain--- meaning they didn't have someone registered in their network in Spain, as if being in their network had something to do with it. The apostle this man was talking to was a church planter. This man was into planting New Testament style churches. He was surprised that Wagner seemed to think like all the apostles were on the list. He said they had an apostle in Spain. He said he knew the man. Apparently the man hadn't planted any churches based on this individual's knowledge, and he said the man had tried to take over a church.
You are thinking of Bethel. Do any of the Bethel leaders think of themselves as part of the 'New Apostolic Reformation', either the organization or the movement? The 'grave sucking' thing is something Bill Johnson addressed. He knows they get some people who are unusual there at church. He said he did not have a problem with being at a gravesite and praying that the same anointing that rested upon the person (or that God use you like that person or whatever words he used) rested on you, but did not believe in soaking up the power from the person at the grave. You could look up the interview if you want specifics. I have seen a photo of someone laying on a grave. That might have been someone who went to that Bethel church there in Redding, or it might not.
I wasn't there when the term was coined, but given that there are young people going to Bethel, 'grave sucking' might have originated as a kind of almost half-joking slang, like other terms that are used like being 'slimed' by a demon if you feel icky about a demonic presence or come under attack (which sounds to me like a reference to Ghost Busters popular culture.) I have heard 'read my mail' for cases where someone gives you an incredibly specific prophecy, and people say, "He read my mail." Just like you might hear 'pray through' as religious language in some church, church people come up with jargon. Some of it might be a little comical, like the 'Charismatic two step' to describe some people in the pews.
It is unfair to attribute something going on at Bethel to the churches and people in the NAR group. There can be some overlap, and I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the Bethel people even leadership held to an NAR idea of apostleship instead of a Biblical missiology view based on Matthew 10, parallel passages in the synoptics, and Acts 13-14 like many people do in the house church movement, part of the greather Plymouth Brethren--Little Flock-- Watchman Nee type, some in the Assemblies of God, some of the church planting movement Baptists with some relationship to the IMB, and some of the missionaries in the 10-40 window. Some NAR people may even hold to that.
I mentioned Michael Brown's article on who is in the NAR and other things along those lines. https://www.christianpost.com/voice/dispelling-myths-new-apostolic-reformation-michael-brown.html
Here is a radio show and/or podcast on it:
https://www.truthnetwork.com/show/line-of-fire-dr-michael-brown/5052/
If you ask me not to comment until I have seen the video ___when I made it clear I was not commenting on the video___, then I am going to ask you not to comment on a topic until you know what you are talking about.