Thanks for bumping the thread jensunner I missed these posts
There you go again reading into the text what isn't there in order to advance your egalitarian/pro-Jezebel stance. Luke doesn't mention 'teaching', 'doctrine' or 'scripture' in Acts 18:26.
Yet what Priscilla was doing by expounding the way to Apollos was teaching him. Apollos missed out on some of the basic details about Christianity and Priscilla explained them to him. What was this if it is was not teaching? And if this is not teaching, does that mean women minister can do the same exposition about Christianity in Church as long as they claim it is 'exposition not teaching'? How would they teach, sorry expound this without mentioning scripture or doctrine? This is just silly. You might as well argue with the zoo keeper that you weren't feeding the animals you were just giving the elephant peanuts because he was hungry. Expounding the way of God more perfectly to Apollos
was teaching him.
So likely the ordering of their names means very little, if anything if it chops and changes like that.
I don't think you can say the order is insignificant because they switch back and forth in different contexts. More likely there were reasons for the specific choices. Interestingly apart from the texual variations in Acts 18:26 all of the references that put Aquilla first are in the context of the church in Corinth. We are introduced to them in Acts 18:1
After this Paul left Athens and went to Corinth. 2 And he found a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla. Later when Paul writes to Corinth he refers to them as 1Cor 16:19
Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, But it was when they began accompanying Paul on his missionary work they became known as Priscilla and Aquila, which is how they were known everywhere else outside Corinth after that. Possibly the difference is that in Corinth they were first known in the Jewish community through the husband's business of making tents, whereas everywhere else they were know as Paul's fellow workers and Priscilla was the one with the more powerful ministry.
I would read more significance into why Paul chose to use her formal name (Prisca) when mentioning her and Luke chose to use the diminutive (Priscilla), than the order of her mention.
Not sure what you can read into Luke was using the more familiar form of her name. Sound more like a term of affection rather than criticism especially when he speaks so positively about her teaching. Paul's usage is harder to tie down as this is one of the areas where there is a lot of textual variation. However if you follow the Textus Receptus Paul refers to her as Priscilla in Rom 16:3 and 1Cor 16:19 and Prisca in 2Tim 4:19. He never speaks of her in anything other than the highest respect.
I can't see why he would feel the need to if he knew Paul had addressed the issue quite adequately in his Epistle, which you say was written around the same time.
So Theophilus would have had a copy of Paul's letter to Timothy? And that is assuming the letter to Timothy was even written at that stage. Of course Paul had adequately dealt with the circumcision controversy in Galatians, in a lot more detail than the brief reference you build your doctrine on in 1Tim. There was also a letter circulating from the council of Jerusalem on the subject. Yet Luke goes into detail about the controversy in Acts. Clearly women's ministry is just as dangerous if you think they are all Jezebels, yet apparently Paul adequately dealt with it in a single obscure verse.
No. They expounded him the 'way of God' more accurately, which is expounding.
Apart from the fact you do not like to admit a woman taught a man, is there any reason to think expounding the way of God more accurately to Apollos wasn't teaching him the way of God? Do you think Apollos learned anything from Priscilla's exposition?
Incidentally when many churches send out couples to pioneer new churches they mention it in their newsletters in forms similar to 'David & Erin Jones - missionaries to Africa'. They are mentioned equally even if the husband is going to be doing all of the pastoring and teaching.
It is when they refer to the couple as Erin and David that you have to ask who is doing most of the preaching.
It suggests nothing of the sort to me.
1 Timothy 2:12 but I do not suffer a woman to teach nor to exercise authority over man, but to be in quietness;
13 for Adam was formed first, then Eve:
14 and Adam was not deceived; but the woman, having been deceived, was in transgression (Darby Translation)
So Paul uses words man and woman which can just as easily be translate husband and wife, he uses a passage in Genesis that everywhere else he uses to refer to marriage, and he specifically talks about the problem of childbirth, but you don't think he might be talking about husband and wife? Isn't context supposed to be important in understanding a verse?
Matthew 7:29 For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes (King James Version)
Yes indeed that is the word
exousia the normal word for power or authority in the NT, used for civil authority or spiritual authority. Odd then Paul doesn't use this word when he is supposedly forbidding women from holding positions of authority in the church.
In any case why would you assume that any particular action by a believer recorded in Acts is necessarily a correct one?
Because reading scripture two thousand years later in a very different culture and context it is very easy to take an obscure verse out of context and think it meant something very different from how Christians at the time would have understood it. The idea of Paul forbidding women ministry would have been nonsensical to churches who knew Paul and all the powerful women's ministries associated with him. I sometime takes this approach when JWs call to the door. They have their own interpretations of all the passages which speak of Christ's deity, but what they cannot explain is how their practice is so different from the early Christians. They may explain away Peter bowing down before Jesus or Thomas saying 'my Lord and my God', but they could not do it themselves. The practice of the early followers of Christ contradicts their carefully set out bible interpretations.
Even if by some miracle you were able to persuade me that the Greek word in Acts 18:26 does mean EXACTLY the same thing as didasko,
It probably would take a miracle when you are so set against understanding the meaning of a very straightforward passage
Of course as I have pointed out expounding to someone is not exactly the same as teaching. Showing someone how to knit or cook is teaching too, but it is not expounding. Teaching is very broad and includes a wide range of topics and methods of teaching, including Priscilla's expounding the way of God more perfectly to Apollos. As I pointed out before, people who think 1Tim 2:12 forbid women ministers tend not to have a problem with women teaching men how to bake or remove an appendix, their problem is with women teaching men the very topics Priscilla taught Apollos.
Paul clearly emphasizes a prohibition in I tim 2:12.
Paul does emphasize a prohibition in 1Tim 2:12, but we would be much better off trying to understand what Paul meant by a women teaching and
authentien an individual man either her husband or worse an man who wasn't her husband. We should look at how Paul gave the prohibition in the context of new believers still learning about Christianity rather than mature Christians in ministry that surrounded Paul like Phoebe and Junia, or women he describes as his fellow workers like Euodia Syntyche and Priscilla. The big problem is we do not not know what Paul meant by
authentein, a word that had a wide range of often pretty ugly meaning. There is no justification for assuming it must mean women having authority in the church when the word wasn't used that. We really should not take an obscure passage like this, out of the context it is written in, and assume it forbids the sort of women's ministries we see describe again and again in the pages of the NT.
Another event in Acts is described regarding one of the chief apostles Peter, whereby under pressure from the Jews he withdrew from eating with Gentiles. Are we then to take this as normative in the same way?
Aren't we told in the same passage that Paul opposed him face to face? Luke on the other hand has only good things to say about Priscilla teaching Apollos "
the way of God more perfectly", while Paul describe Priscilla and Aquila as,
my fellow workers in Christ Jesus Rom 16:3. No hint of any problem with Priscilla teaching Apollos or her continued ministry with Paul.
Luke clearly chose to distinguish what Apollos was doing in Acts 18:25, teaching (didasko) people about Christ; from what Aquila & Prisca did with him. He did so by using a different Greek word.
The problem is you are assuming he used the different words to distinguish Priscilla's exposition from Apollos who was allowed to actually teach. A simpler explanation, and one that fits the context, is that Luke chose the word to highlight how much deeper and accurate Priscilla's teaching was. Luke's point was that Priscilla's teaching was a more perfect exposition than Apollo's teaching which was accurate but incomplete. Another problem with your argument is that the teaching Apollos was described as doing was preaching the gospel, a form of teaching the even people who reject women ministers allow women to do. Priscilla was teaching a man who was already a Christian.
sorry, no did not catch the reference, the python bit yes, not Acts. Which make me wonder what I am walking into with your next question 
I missed them.
