Women In Authority – Teaching Mixed Assemblies in Church

[Magentic]

Jesus lived in culture that was patriarchal to the point of being near misogynous.
Everyday life on all points was based on hierarchy. But Jesus (I love those words "but Jesus")
went against the norms of patriarchal culture by treating women as persons equal with men. All
were invited to sit at His feet and learn from Him, men and women alike.
　
He showed equality in person (Jn 8:3-11) equality in marraige (Mt 8:1-11)
equality of social status (Jn 4:26, 39-42)
　
He projects God into the image of woman (Mt 23:37, Lk 13:34, Lk 15:8-10)
　
He rejected the notion of woman's role (Lk 10:38-42) rejects the cultural perception (lk 11:27-28)
　
And commissions the first apostle-a woman (Jn 10:10-18, Mt 28:1-10)
　
The Holy Spirit continued to advance the idea of equality of women by both men and women
participating in prayer and discisionmaking in the upper room (Acts 1:13-26)
　
The Spirit confirms Jesus' egalitarian pattern by women being equal participants of the
outpouring at Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4, 17-18)
　
Equality of marraige holds Ananias and Sapphira equally responsible (Acts 5:1-11)
　
Equally redeemed with the same ramifications (Acts 5:14)
　
in proclaimation and practise (Acts 17:34, 12:34 )
　
being responsible co-workers
(1 cor 16:16, Rom 16:1-16,19 , Phil 4:2-3)
　
While women also functioned in business ((Acts 16:14, Acts 17:32, Acts 18:2-3, Rom 16:1-2)
　
The image that has been projected is a false picture that a thorough reading of scripture
with unbiased eyes show.
　

 

[Crankitup]

Thanks for bumping the thread jensunner I missed these posts

Somehow I find it hard to believe that you missed post # 35 & 36 along with their accompanying e-mail notifications and then a week later post # 37 when I bumped the thread with a picture. The e-mail notifications are on by default and the number of times I've noticed in the past that your online status changes to blue shortly after I've posted a reply to this thread makes me certain that you haven't switched them off. You don't often reply at the same time but it seems you usually at least read the replies straight away (except when the time zone differences are such that you are asleep). I suppose as a test I could edit the bottom of this post with the time I notice you come online after I post this reply.

Yet what Priscilla was doing by expounding the way to Apollos was teaching him.

The word DIDASKO is a Greek word in the New Testament, which means:
to teach , to hold discourse with others in order to instruct them, deliver didactic discourses, to be a teacher, to discharge the office of a teacher, conduct one's self as a teacher. This is the word that Luke used in Acts 18:25 to describe Apollos' activities immediately prior to his encounter with Aquila & Prisca. In Acts 18:26 he uses a different Greek word. I don't think you can say that this is insignificant. Well, you can try, as you have been .... but you have thus far failed to convince me. As I've said before, Priscilla (who would have been in submission to her husband) was working as a team with her husband, privately. She wasn't standing up in a public setting teaching a group of men. Apollos only knew the baptism of John. They filled in the blanks for him on that score. This was a private conversation, similar to a home Bible study.

... 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.

How ironic from someone who previously said the following in this very thread .............

1Tim 2 does not actually mention teaching scripture ...

In any case in an environment where people were laying sick people out in the street in order that the shadows of passing Apostles might heal them, it wasn't always necessary for them to directly refer to scripture to have people believe. Witness Paul speaking to the Greek Epicurean stoics & philosophers at Mars Hill in Athens. He instead refers to their poets to make his point rather than referring to scripture (which for the most part they would probably be unfamiliar with). In the case of Apollos, He already knew that Christ had been crucified as well as what Christ preached and did before His death. Whilst we can't rule it out, it didn't necessarily require any specific reference to written scripture to explain the role of the Holy Spirit etcetera to bring Apollos up to date.

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.

Possibly yes, but those reasons could amount to anything from just being polite by mentioning the woman first on occasion or in the spirit of I Peter, giving honour to the woman as the weaker vessel. We can't read anything definitive into the ordering of their names at all.

So Theophilus would have had a copy of Paul's letter to Timothy?

I can't see why not. Why would Timothy want to keep it secret seeing as it contained so much good advice, unless of course you're of the opinion that Timothy was the only person on earth at the time that could gain anything from such advice.

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.

Which is precisely what you have done with Acts 18.

.... Of course as I have pointed out expounding to someone is not exactly the same as teaching. ....

Glad we agree on that one.

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.

If you ignore I Tim 2:12 and the fact that Luke used a different Greek word in Acts 18:26.

EDIT: Right on cue .......

I posted #42 12:03 PM Perth time (4:03 AM your time ... still pushing z's).

4 hours later you log on (4:13 PM my time 8:13 AM your time).

 

[Crankitup]

If 1Tim 2:12 was a new restriction, then I presume you would have no problem with earlier instances of women in leadership in the church, like Phoebe the deacon, the apostle Junia or Pheobe's teaching ministry.

Here we go again.

Very few translations render the crucial word in Romans 16:1 as deacon or deaconess, the majority rendering it as servant.

Originally Posted by John Piper and Wayne Grudem

Phoebe is praised as a "servant" or "deacon" of the church at Cenchreea who "has been a great help [or "patroness" ] to many people, including me" (Romans 16:1-2). Some have tried to argue that the Greek word behind "help" really means "leader." This is doubtful, since it is hard to imagine, on any count, what Paul would mean by saying that Phoebe became his leader. .... She was a very significant person and played a crucial role in the ministry. But to derive anything from this that is contrary to our understanding of 1 Timothy 2:12, one would have to assume authority over men here since it cannot be shown.
​

And Junia?

Greet Andronicus and Junia, my relatives who were in prison with me; they are prominent among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.​

The Greek word Iounian can been translated as "Junias" (male) and as "Junia" (female).

RSV - Rom 16:7 Greet Androni'cus and Ju'nias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners; they are men of note among the apostles, and they were in Christ before me.

KJV - "Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen" ...

NKJV - "Greet Andronicus and Junia, my countrymen"

and amongst others the ESV - "Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen".

That's four translations two of which have the Textus Receptus as their base and two that use the 'early manuscripts' or NU (minority) text.

I know from our previous discussions you have your reasons to take a female rendering. Even if we are to accept a female rendering, what about the meaning of the phrase episemoi en tois apostolois? Andronicus and Junia were "either highly regarded by the apostles" or were apostles themselves. I would favour the former interpretation. If you insist on the latter I would have only one question for you.

If Andronicus and Junia were well-known and highly regarded apostles, isn't it strange that scripture is otherwise completely silent about them?

 

[Assyrian]

Looks like the dog has more sense than his owners

Somehow I find it hard to believe that you missed post # 35 & 36 along with their accompanying e-mail notifications and then a week later post # 37 when I bumped the thread with a picture. The e-mail notifications are on by default and the number of times I've noticed in the past that your online status changes to blue shortly after I've posted a reply to this thread makes me certain that you haven't switched them off. You don't often reply at the same time but it seems you usually at least read the replies straight away (except when the time zone differences are such that you are asleep).

Ooh goody! I have a cyber stalker No I switched the default e-mail notification off from the beginning, I don't want my my email's inbox filled up with notifications that aren't people emailing me. I use the control panel instead, which works well enough most of the time but can let stuff slip through if your browser is playing up. How nice of you to assume I must be lying

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'?

The word DIDASKO is a Greek word in the New Testament, which means:
to teach , to hold discourse with others in order to instruct them, deliver didactic discourses, to be a teacher, to discharge the office of a teacher, conduct one's self as a teacher.

Yes we all know what teach means. What you need to show is that Priscilla's expounding the way of God more perfectly to Apollos wasn't a form of teaching, she was certainly holding a discourse with him in order to instruct him and conducting herself as a teacher. The fact you did not address my point is pretty telling.

This is the word that Luke used in Acts 18:25 to describe Apollos' activities immediately prior to his encounter with Aquila & Prisca. In Acts 18:26 he uses a different Greek word. I don't think you can say that this is insignificant. Well, you can try, as you have been .... but you have thus far failed to convince me.

Of course. The question is how open you are to being convinced, because what Priscilla was clearly doing was teaching Apollos. I addressed the significance of Luke's choice of words in another section you missed out on.

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.​

As I've said before, Priscilla (who would have been in submission to her husband) was working as a team with her husband, privately. She wasn't standing up in a public setting teaching a group of men. Apollos only knew the baptism of John. They filled in the blanks for him on that score. This was a private conversation, similar to a home Bible study.

Yet Priscilla still taught Apollos. Does 1Tim say anything about women only being banned from teaching a public assembly or if their husband isn't present? If you are going it interpret it as a ban on women teaching men, then it includes Priscilla teaching Apollos, which simply doesn't make sense. Of you want to pick and choose which contexts women are not allowed teach men, then you need to look for the context in 1Tim, not simply claim it included women preaching in church with no basis other than your interpretation of this very passage.

How ironic from someone who previously said the following in this very thread .............

1Tim 2 does not actually mention teaching scripture ...

Except I wasn't say "ha ha 1Tim 2 doesn't mention teaching scripture so that doesn't count". I was addressing an interpretation that says 1Tim 2 only refers to teaching scripture or having authority in the church. You pick and choose what authority and teaching roles women are allowed, permitting your Deborahs Priscillas and Phoebes to teach and lead the way they did as long as it was not teaching scripture or leading in church. All supposedly based on 1Tim 2, which says nothing about teaching scripture in the assembly or having authority over men in the church. You act as though 1Tim 2 give you a mandate to give Deborahs Priscillas and Phoebes a limited role outside the main assembly while banning women from church leadership or teaching men in the assembly. It does nothing of the sort. That is simply making excuses for a failed interpretation that is contradicted by the authority and teaching roles God has actually giving women.

You can either see 1Tim 2 as a blanket ban on any woman having any authority over any man or teaching any man anything... which is flatly contradicted by the the leadership roles and teaching ministries we see women given by God in scripture. Or we can realise God does raise women up to leadership and teaching and look in the context of 1Tim 2 to see what specific problems Paul is dealing with. What makes no sense is to arbitrarily decide 1Tim 2 only applies to women teaching and having authority in the church. The only reason you would think this is from your interpretation of 1Tim 2 banning women from having authority and teaching in the church. In other words a circular argument where you base your interpretation of 1Tim 2 on your interpretation of 1Tim 2

In any case in an environment where people were laying sick people out in the street in order that the shadows of passing Apostles might heal them, it wasn't always necessary for them to directly refer to scripture to have people believe. Witness Paul speaking to the Greek Epicurean stoics & philosophers at Mars Hill in Athens. He instead refers to their poets to make his point rather than referring to scripture (which for the most part they would probably be unfamiliar with). In the case of Apollos, He already knew that Christ had been crucified as well as what Christ preached and did before His death. Whilst we can't rule it out, it didn't necessarily require any specific reference to written scripture to explain the role of the Holy Spirit etcetera to bring Apollos up to date.

Firstly it is inconceivable that Priscilla would expound the way of God more perfectly to Apollos without drawing on OT scriptures that as Jews they would both have seen as foundational to their faith. But more than that your distinction that it was alright for her to instruct Apollos about the way of God as long as she didn't refer to scripture is without any basis in scripture.

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.

Possibly yes, but those reasons could amount to anything from just being polite by mentioning the woman first on occasion or in the spirit of I Peter, giving honour to the woman as the weaker vessel. We can't read anything definitive into the ordering of their names at all.

I agree it is not definitive, it is however consistent with what we know of the NT's use of name order. I even gave you a coherent explanation for the different times the two name order are used. We see the same thing in Luke's use of Barnabas and Saul, or Paul and Barnabas the new name order coinciding with Paul taking the lead, and taking on a new name Paul. The only times Luke switches name order back are when people assume Barnabas was leading such as at Lystra where the Locals thought Barnabas was Zeus and the talkative Paul Hermes, or when they went back to Jerusalem which had originally commissioned Barnabas to go to Antioch. On the other hand you have no basis for your assumption switching name order back and forth was considered polite.

I can't see why not. Why would Timothy want to keep it secret seeing as it contained so much good advice, unless of course you're of the opinion that Timothy was the only person on earth at the time that could gain anything from such advice.

So Timothy would have photocopied Paul's letter and FedExed copies to every church and literate Christian in the Roman and Persian empires? That is not the way the NT books spread. Neighbouring churches would have read each other's letters Col 4:16 And when this letter has been read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans; and see that you also read the letter from Laodicea. The gospel and epistles were labouriously copied out by hand and the copies copied and those copied copied further as people had time and opportunity.

Which is precisely what you have done with Acts 18.

Acts 18 is clear and simple, unlike 1Tim 2 where we do not know what one of the most important words, authentein actually means, yet churches forbid women from having authority in the church on the basis of this word we don't understand.

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.

Glad we agree on that one.

We don't agree on that much if you have to snip out most of the reply

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.

If you ignore I Tim 2:12 and the fact that Luke used a different Greek word in Acts 18:26.

There is nothing in 1Tim 2 to suggest Paul is talking about Priscilla teaching Apollos rather than the new women believers Paul was talking to Timothy about. Paul still seems on very good terms with her in 2Tim and addresses the two of them as Prisca and Aquila. Nor is there anything in Acts to suggest her expounding the way of God more perfectly was not teaching or that she was wrong in doing it. All we have is to contradict Priscilla teaching Aquilla is your out of context interpretation of an obscure and difficult passage in 1Tim and your quibbling over words that somehow Priscilla expounding to Apollos does not count as teaching, Yet while you split hairs in Acts 18 you are not willing to have women minister instruct and expound in church as long as they don't call it 'teaching'.

 

[Assyrian]

Here we go again.

Very few translations render the crucial word in Romans 16:1 as deacon or deaconess, the majority rendering it as servant.

Originally Posted by John Piper and Wayne Grudem

Phoebe is praised as a "servant" or "deacon" of the church at Cenchreea who "has been a great help [or "patroness" ] to many people, including me" (Romans 16:1-2). Some have tried to argue that the Greek word behind "help" really means "leader." This is doubtful, since it is hard to imagine, on any count, what Paul would mean by saying that Phoebe became his leader. .... She was a very significant person and played a crucial role in the ministry. But to derive anything from this that is contrary to our understanding of 1 Timothy 2:12, one would have to assume authority over men here since it cannot be shown.
​

Yup tradition is a very powerful thing. Notice how Piper and Grudem are taking their understanding of a very difficult and obscure passage and using it to twist their understand of quite simple concepts like patronage, and Paul's description of Phoebe as his patron, with all the authority and influence that role carried at that time.

But your quote highlights my point. jensunner was interpreting 1Tim 2 as a new prohibition, in which case there was no reason to even apply the misunderstanding of 1Tim 2 to Phoebe, Junia or Priscilla in the first place.

And Junia?

Greet Andronicus and Junia, my relatives who were in prison with me; they are prominent among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.​

The Greek word Iounian can been translated as "Junias" (male) and as "Junia" (female).

RSV - Rom 16:7 Greet Androni'cus and Ju'nias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners; they are men of note among the apostles, and they were in Christ before me.

KJV - "Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen" ...

NKJV - "Greet Andronicus and Junia, my countrymen"

and amongst others the ESV - "Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen".

That's four translations two of which have the Textus Receptus as their base and two that use the 'early manuscripts' or NU (minority) text.

I know from our previous discussions you have your reasons to take a female rendering. Even if we are to accept a female rendering, what about the meaning of the phrase episemoi en tois apostolois? Andronicus and Junia were "either highly regarded by the apostles" or were apostles themselves. I would favour the former interpretation. If you insist on the latter I would have only one question for you.

The only reason to insist Junia was a man (when Junia was a very common woman's name while there were no men called Junias) or to insist in spite of the Greek they were highly regarded by the apostles, is the assumption women could not possible be apostles. Yet even Chrysostom, no champion of women's ministries, understood the passage in its plain meaning that Junia was a woman and an apostle. However with the increasing ugly tide of misogyny in the church that went way beyond excluding women from leadership, it is not surprising people would search for excuses to exclude Junia as an apostle, starting with Epiphanius who claimed both Junia and Priscilla were men. But as a hostile witness, Chrysostom's understanding of the plain meaning of the Greek is much more credible. But traditions take deep root in the church so it is hardly surprising our translation still reflect the claim Junia was a man or not an apostle.

If Andronicus and Junia were well-known and highly regarded apostles, isn't it strange that scripture is otherwise completely silent about them?

You asked this exact question before and I addressed it in post 10 which you ignored when you replied to me.

If Andronicus and Junia were well-known and highly regarded apostles, isn't it strange that scripture is otherwise completely silent about them?

Not in the least. We mainly know what went on around the missionary routes of Paul and Luke from Jerusalem up through Asia Minor and into Greece and Italy. How many of the 12 apostles do we encounter as they went on their missionary journeys? Once they leave Jerusalem, there is absolute silence about them in the NT. All you have are accounts in church tradition about their work in North Africa into Mesopotamia and down into India. Jesus told his disciples to go into the whole world and preach the gospel, but we only hear about Peter and John.​

 

[Crankitup]

Ooh goody! I have a cyber stalker [/SIZE] No I switched the default e-mail notification off from the beginning, I don't want my my email's inbox filled up with notifications that aren't people emailing me. I use the control panel instead, which works well enough most of the time but can let stuff slip through if your browser is playing up. How nice of you to assume I must be lying

No cyber stalking required. Just looking at your profile tells me when you last accessed the site. Nice twist of my words BTW. Slightly paranoiac actually. I didn't "assume you must be lying". All I said was that I find it hard to believe you missed all 3 of my posts including the one I used to bump the thread a week after the other two. I still find it hard to believe TBH, for the reasons I've already mentioned. That doesn't mean I think you MUST be lying, just that it strains credulity somewhat.

Yes we all know what teach means. What you need to show is that [Aquila &] Priscilla's expounding the way of God more perfectly to Apollos wasn't a form of teaching, she [& her husband] were certainly holding a discourse with him in order to instruct him and conducting themselves as teachers.

[] - My additions/corrections. I agree they were holding a discourse with him. I don't agree necessarily that they were conducting themselves as teachers and I think the word 'instruct' is too strong too. Simply put, my belief is that if they were 'teaching' Apollos then Luke would have used 'didasko' at verse 26 just as he did at verse 25. The lame attempts you've made to defeat that logic only serve to convince me more about the reasons for the two week silence in the thread on your part since I introduced that very point.

So Timothy would have photocopied Paul's letter and FedExed copies to every church and literate Christian in the Roman and Persian empires? That is not the way the NT books spread. ....

Seriously ..... you said the above in response to my comment "Why would Timothy want to keep it secret seeing as it contained so much good advice, unless of course you're of the opinion that Timothy was the only person on earth at the time that could gain anything from such advice." I'm well aware of how the NT manuscripts were transmitted. I've had in-depth discussions about manuscript evidence on CF before e.g. http://www.christianforums.com/t7376020-3/#post51832307 so you can lose the sarcasm, mocking and condescending tone and instead address the point I've made. Which you haven't. Seriously your attempts as misdirection are pathetic and they imply an agenda.

We don't agree on that much if you have to snip out most of the reply

Don't you get it? That was the only part of that paragraph I DID agree with. That's the point.

 

[Crankitup]

The only reason to insist Junia was a man (when Junia was a very common woman's name while there were no men called Junias) or to insist in spite of the Greek they were highly regarded by the apostles, is the assumption women could not possible be apostles. Yet even Chrysostom, no champion of women's ministries, understood the passage in its plain meaning that Junia was a woman and an apostle. However with the increasing ugly tide of misogyny in the church that went way beyond excluding women from leadership, it is not surprising people would search for excuses to exclude Junia as an apostle, starting with Epiphanius who claimed both Junia and Priscilla were men. But as a hostile witness, Chrysostom's understanding of the plain meaning of the Greek is much more credible. But traditions take deep root in the church so it is hardly surprising our translation still reflect the claim Junia was a man or not an apostle.

Not in the least. We mainly know what went on around the missionary routes of Paul and Luke from Jerusalem up through Asia Minor and into Greece and Italy. How many of the 12 apostles do we encounter as they went on their missionary journeys? Once they leave Jerusalem, there is absolute silence about them in the NT. All you have are accounts in church tradition about their work in North Africa into Mesopotamia and down into India. Jesus told his disciples to go into the whole world and preach the gospel, but we only hear about Peter and John.

I don't have the time to check the validity of everything you've said here but in the interim I'll re-emphasize the fact that it's irrelevant to me in any case since to me the phrase' episemoi en tois apostolois' means that Andronicus and Junia were "highly regarded by the apostles" rather than being apostles themselves. I only posed the question to help disabuse you of the latter notion but seeing the way you seek to misdirect and twist much of what I say lately, I'd rather let you continue to stew in your own error and misconception.

 

[Assyrian]

No cyber stalking required. Just looking at your profile tells me when you last accessed the site. Nice twist of my words BTW. Slightly paranoiac actually.

Then again...

EDIT: Right on cue .......

I posted #42 12:03 PM Perth time (4:03 AM your time ... still pushing z's).
4 hours later you log on (4:13 PM my time 8:13 AM your time).

I did put a smiley after the 'cyber stalking' to show it was a bit of hyperbole.

I didn't "assume you must be lying". All I said was that I find it hard to believe you missed all 3 of my posts including the one I used to bump the thread a week after the other two. I still find it hard to believe TBH, for the reasons I've already mentioned. That doesn't mean I think you MUST be lying, just that it strains credulity somewhat.

What reasons? Because of the default email notification you think everybody has switched on? I am quite happy to get back to a thread with a simple "sorry for the delay" I have done before, I don't need to give a reason, I certainly don't need to make one up. You suggested I was lying and tried to prove your case by tracking when I am logged onto CF, as if that even means I am anywhere near the ecclesiology forum. You failed. It would much better to apologise or simply drop the subject.

Yes we all know what teach means. What you need to show is that [Aquila &] Priscilla's expounding the way of God more perfectly to Apollos wasn't a form of teaching, she [& her husband] were certainly holding a discourse with him in order to instruct him and conducting themselves as teachers.

[] - My additions/corrections.

Don't see the point in adding in [& her husband] you interpretation of 1Tim 2 say women shouldn't teach men, there is nothing about 'unless her husband is present'. It says a lot that you have to make up further excuses like this. If Priscilla really wasn't teaching Apollos what difference would it make to the discussion if her husband joined in too?

I agree they were holding a discourse with him. I don't agree necessarily that they were conducting themselves as teachers and I think the word 'instruct' is too strong too.

Too strong? There was a gaping hole in Apollos's knowledge of Christianity and Priscilla (and her husband) too him to one side and provided him with allt he information adn understanding he lacked. How is that not instruction? How is it not teaching him?

Simply put, my belief is that if they were 'teaching' Apollos then Luke would have used 'didasko' at verse 26 just as he did at verse 25. The lame attempts you've made to defeat that logic only serve to convince me more about the reasons for the two week silence in the thread on your part since I introduced that very point.

Given you have failed again and again to address my so called 'lame attempts' and ignore most of my replies is pretty strong evidence whose argument is lame.

You are assuming Luke changed the word to show Priscilla was not actually teaching Apollos, but there isn't the slightest hint that this is his reason, that he had even read 1Tim 2:12, or that he was trying to show Priscilla wasn't really teaching Apollos. Luke has much more integrity than to play word games like that. That is the sort of word game played by the medieval church when they declared beavers 'fish' so they could eat them on fast days, or Bill Clinton trying to wriggle out of women trouble of his own. The fact is, you don't believe this verbal gymnastics yourself, or you would be happy to allow women to preach instruct expound as long as it isn't called teaching. Oddly that is another point you keep avoiding having to deal with.

Seriously ..... you said the above in response to my comment "Why would Timothy want to keep it secret seeing as it contained so much good advice, unless of course you're of the opinion that Timothy was the only person on earth at the time that could gain anything from such advice." I'm well aware of how the NT manuscripts were transmitted. I've had in-depth discussions about manuscript evidence on CF before e.g. http://www.christianforums.com/t7376020-3/#post51832307 so you can lose the sarcasm, mocking and condescending tone and instead address the point I've made. Which you haven't. Seriously your attempts as misdirection are pathetic and they imply an agenda.

I have addressed you point. It was so silly, humour seemed the best response. If you understand how manuscripts were transmitted, as I have no doubt you do, you should realise how unlikely it was for Theophilus to have had a copy, assuming 1Timothy was even written at that stage.

Don't you get it? That was the only part of that paragraph I DID agree with. That's the point.

Pity you could not address the parts you didn't agree with.

 

[Assyrian]

Surprisingly enough you are still ignoring the point I was making.

I don't have the time to check the validity of everything you've said here but in the interim I'll re-emphasize the fact that it's irrelevant to me in any case since to me the phrase' episemoi en tois apostolois' means that Andronicus and Junia were "highly regarded by the apostles" rather than being apostles themselves. I only posed the question to help disabuse you of the latter notion but seeing the way you seek to misdirect and twist much of what I say lately, I'd rather let you continue to stew in your own error and misconception.

Did you ever wonder why that interpretation never occurred to Chrysostom? OK he mistook the very common women name Junia for a woman's name, but even if he made that mistake, why should he think she was an apostle if the Greek only meant highly regarded by the apostles? The Greek Orthodox church regards her as an apostle too. Are they really that bad at Greek?

 

[revanneosl]

All of the tortured theological posturing people have to go through in order to deny the clear scriptural witness that there was a female Apostle named Junia reminds me very much of the similar game of bible-twister people have to play in order to contend that Jesus made & drank grape juice instead of wine.

 

[Ringo84]

What are the reasons for keeping women out of authority?
Ringo

 

[revanneosl]

Fear, mostly.

 

[Assyrian]

They are cleverer than us and work harder.

 

[Crankitup]

I Cor 8:2 And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.

 

[Crankitup]

Surprisingly enough you are still ignoring the point I was making.
Did you ever wonder why that interpretation never occurred to Chrysostom? OK he mistook the very common women name Junia for a woman's name ...

Chrysostom was no champion of women's participation in ministry. Many of his statements attest to this including the following .....

God maintained the order of each sex by dividing the business of human life into two parts and assigned the more necessary and beneficial aspects to the man, and the less important inferior matters to the woman.

You say an ECF assumes Junia was a woman and I can point to another ECF (Epiphanius) who assumes Junias was a man. I don't think anybody can be sure but it doesn't matter, for the reason I highlighted earlier.

why should he think she was an apostle if the Greek only meant highly regarded by the apostles? The Greek Orthodox church regards her as an apostle too. Are they really that bad at Greek?

Ambiguity can come about quite easily in any language, whether it be Greek, English or Chinese. It's no reflection at all on their mastery of the language. Consider the following statement. "John Bates is highly regarded amongst tennis players." Is John Bates a good tennis player? Or is he a good coach ... or good umpire, or ball boy ......

 

[Assyrian]

Chrysostom was no champion of women's participation in ministry. Many of his statements attest to this including the following .....

You say an ECF assumes Junia was a woman and I can point to another ECF (Epiphanius) who assumes Junias was a man. I don't think anybody can be sure but it doesn't matter, for the reason I highlighted earlier.

It comes down to two things, the testimony of a hostile witness, and basic credibility. The fact Chrysostom was not a fan of women's ministry makes his testimony about Junia being both an apostle and a woman all the more compelling. He had no reason to twist the Greek to make it say she was a woman apostle and every reason to find another meaning of the Greek that say she wasn't.

On the other hand, Epiphanius thought even Priscilla was a man so you really do have to question his credibility.

Ambiguity can come about quite easily in any language, whether it be Greek, English or Chinese. It's no reflection at all on their mastery of the language. Consider the following statement. "John Bates is highly regarded amongst tennis players." Is John Bates a good tennis player? Or is he a good coach ... or good umpire, or ball boy ......

If the Greek really was ambiguous why didn't Chrysostom or the Greek orthodox church pick up on it? It is not like they are really into women's ministries or anything. Native speakers of a language are much better at understanding the natural meaning of a phrase than people who have learned it thorough grammar and vocabulary. Especially if the people who have learned the language are trying to find excuses to wriggle out of what the text says.

 

[Crankitup]

It comes down to two things, the testimony of a hostile witness, and basic credibility. The fact Chrysostom was not a fan of women's ministry makes his testimony about Junia being both an apostle and a woman all the more compelling. He had no reason to twist the Greek to make it say she was a woman apostle and every reason to find another meaning of the Greek that say she wasn't.

That is if you assume the the worst about the motives of an Early Church Father.

On the other hand, Epiphanius thought even Priscilla was a man so you really do have to question his credibility.

Maybe you do. I have no reason to doubt the credibility of an ECF. You OTOH can call them liars and think the worst of their motives as much as you like. It has no influence on my argument at all.

If the Greek really was ambiguous why didn't Chrysostom or the Greek orthodox church pick up on it? It is not like they are really into women's ministries or anything. Native speakers of a language are much better at understanding the natural meaning of a phrase than people who have learned it thorough grammar and vocabulary. Especially if the people who have learned the language are trying to find excuses to wriggle out of what the text says.

Are you sure the Greek that was in use in Chrysostom's time was the same as Koine'? I would have thought that Koine' would have fallen into disuse by then.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

What are the reasons for keeping women out of authority?

Entrenched prejudice?

 

[Assyrian]

That is if you assume the the worst about the motives of an Early Church Father.

No I am not assuming the worst, I am simply showing how his testimony is less reliable than Chrysostom. You really a better argument than indignation. People are human, even church fathers. And a testimony that we know is free from personal bias, the testimony of a hostile witness, is more trustworthy than a testimony of a biased witness know for making outrageous claims like saying Priscilla was a man.

What you need to do is question your own motivation in wanting to attach equal weight to the testimony of Chrysostom and the obscure Epiphanius, even though the Greek Orthodox church never bought Epiphanius's claims that Junia was a man.

Maybe you do. I have no reason to doubt the credibility of an ECF. You OTOH can call them liars and think the worst of their motives as much as you like. It has no influence on my argument at all.

Do you have any actual arguments here? Any reason not to question the credibility of Epiphanius's testimony about Junia when he though Priscilla was a man? I mean if you really held the Church Fathers in such high regard, you would be displaying a Greek Orthodox faith icon. How do you feel about the eucharist really being Christ's flesh, or infant baptism? Or are you just picking and choosing when to insist on the absolute sanctity and reliability of everything church fathers ever thought and wrote.

Are you sure the Greek that was in use in Chrysostom's time was the same as Koine'? I would have thought that Koine' would have fallen into disuse by then.

They both lived just the century after the koine Greek period and would have been immersed in the earlier koine writings of the church. No I don't think this is an issue.

 

[Crankitup]

No I am not assuming the worst, I am simply showing how his testimony is less reliable than Chrysostom.

Less reliable?? What a joke. Why beat about the bush? You don't think his testimony is LESS reliable. You think it's totally UNreliable. What's more I'm inclined to believe from what you have written that you think his testimony was intentionally false rather than him merely being mistaken.

What you need to do is question your own motivation in wanting to attach equal weight to the testimony of Chrysostom and the obscure Epiphanius ...

Objection your honour. Once again Assyrian is seeking to misdirect. Where did I say I attached equal weight to their testimony? You pointed to an ECF who said one thing and I mentioned another ECF (as an aside) who said the opposite but I distinctly recall saying at the time that I didn't think anybody could be sure. Furthermore I said that it didn't matter because my argument didn't hinge on the gender of the person in question in any case.

.... even though the Greek Orthodox church never bought Epiphanius's claims that Junia was a man.

Not that the gender matters as far as my argument is concerned but can you give me a reference for your claim? Did the Greek Orthodox Church as a whole or in part ever even consider the question and make a final determination on the issue? Does substantive evidence exist to prove that no one in the history of the Greek Orthodox Church ever agreed with Epiphanius? References please.

I mean if you really held the Church Fathers in such high regard, you would be displaying a Greek Orthodox faith icon.

I really don't see how you can equate my taking objection to you automatically assuming they were lying, to my holding them in an abnormally high regard. The fact that an ECF might have said something that doesn't line up with your presuppositions seems to be enough for you to find them guilty as charged.

They both lived just the century after the koine Greek period and would have been immersed in the earlier koine writings of the church. No I don't think this is an issue.

Languages can change a lot in a hundred or so years. If there was a period in time where the Greek language changed more than it did then, I'd like to see it. I thought my 'John Bates' example demonstrated the ambiguity question quite well. What a pity you chose to ignore it.