Analytical:

1 Cor 3:5 (KJV)
. . .
Ephe 1:7
. . .
The word translated minister here is the same word used for Phoebe in Rom 16:1- The word 'diakonon'. Strong's Greek Dictionary reference for 'diakonon' gives it's meaning as

'specially, a Christian teacher and pastor (technically, a deacon or deaconess) -- deacon, minister, servant.'.

I repeat, Phoebe ministered or taught like the others called deacons like Stephen etc.

Without much ado, I'll grant that to you; but with just this subscript: The primary meaning of diakonos is not a teacher. Strong's Dictionary:

diakonos
dee-ak'-on-os
Probably from διάκω diakō (obsolete, to run on errands; compare G1377); an attendant, that is, (generally) a waiter (at table or in other menial duties);

No boubt you offered the technical meaning in the context of Rom. 16:1; but in connection to the allusion that Stephen was one of the teachers in that context throws the debate out. Check the references for Stephen chosen in Acts 6, and you'll see there that he was not chosen to be a teacher, but to serve in the daily ministration of those being neglected. The ministration does not point to teaching in church.

Yet, Pheobe being a servant of the church in Rom. 16:1 should not be treated in isolation of its proper context which verse 2 offers. I think mihai has been of very good help in this regard to call our attention to that. It would be dificult for anyone to push the agenda that Pheobe taught in the church unless verse 2 is ignored. She "succoured" many - that's the sense in which she was a "servant"; and this is made clear even in Strong's Dictionary primarily seeing the word "servant" in Rom. 16:1 as an attendant, one who runs errands, a waiter.

Analytical:

I flow with your reasoning, but why won't the rendition of those words be husband and wife under the context they were used, seeing the words were used interchangeably for them?

The words used were specifically 'Adam' and 'Eve', not 'husband' and 'wife' - they were not used interchangeably. Besides, Paul made the same allusion in discussing church matters in I Cor. 11:8-12 as a basis for divine order.

Analytical:

If a woman bears a children and she is not a wife, then the child is a bastard. The scripture does not recommend that and certainly Paul wouldn't have supported what the scripture calls sin.

The point I tried to make is that, for one to suggest that only married women are capable of bearing children is not supported in Scripture or biological science. Paul's allusion to Adam and Eve was not meant to address matters in the home, but rather in the church - again to show divine order in God's economy among His people.

Analytical:

There are many instructions passed to Timothy and Titus, both Bishops actually because they oversee a group of churches, that touched on home issues, because homes and individuals make a church and not a building.

Check again: the context was what happens in church, rather than how people lead their lives in the home. When the church is gathered together, the apostle recommends that women were not to teach or take the lead as speakers.

Have you wondered for a moment why none of the apostles made a similar recommendation concerning any other gifts of the Spirit, such as praying, prophesying, speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, etc? Why do we infact find the recommendation alone as concerning teaching? Can one use the same arguments of the culture and carnal background in Corinth and Ephesus to make the same recommendation regarding other gifts as regards women in church?

These questions should help shape our thinking about this subject; for my persuasion is that while women can preach and teach in certain settings, they are not recommended to assume the roles of teaching in church!

Of course, I have learnt and am still learning from all inputs; yet, I fail to see how the texts advanced in support of women teaching in church have been able to justify the notion.

Cheers.

@Shahan

I am using a Parallel Translations Bible that has 10 different translations and comparing all of them, with their Greek lexicons, not just NIV.

In all of these I found out that 6 out of the 10 translated Acts 18: 26 as Priscilla and Aquila.  Following your arithmetic,

Total number of verses quoted = 5
Total number of times Aquila mentioned before Priscilla = 2
Total number of times Priscilla mentioned before Aquila = 3

You see, it depends on which translations you use, but more translations put Priscilla first.  Not that this means so much nor take anything away from either of them.  The truth is that Priscilla taught and pastored.

Notice I used Nympha[b]s[/b] (not Nympha, which is feminine); however, as above, more of the scholarly translators believe it to be masculine, since the feminine will need an accent to make it so; and early Greek did not use accentuations.

I disagree with this.  The feminine Nympha predated later manuscripts that rendered it Nymphas.  In fact, you have to do something to it to make it masculine.  The natural rendition of that name is that of a woman.  The reference to her house church made it clearer.  Consider the Greek used "oikon autees ekkleesian" meaning "her house church"!

Yet, Pheobe being a servant of the church in Rom. 16:1 should not be treated in isolation of its proper context which verse 2 offers. I think mihai has been of very good help in this regard to call our attention to that. It would be dificult for anyone to push the agenda that Pheobe taught in the church unless verse 2 is ignored. She "succoured" many - that's the sense in which she was a "servant"; and this is made clear even in Strong's Dictionary primarily seeing the word "servant" in Rom. 16:1 as an attendant, one who runs errands, a waiter.

Stephen was so called, and Philip, they did not just serve tables, they taught.  The Greek word translated 'succour' is "prostatis" which according to Thayer's Greek Definitions also means "A woman set over others."   How can she be set over others and still be their waiter running errands?

The words used were specifically 'Adam' and 'Eve', not 'husband' and 'wife' - they were not used interchangeably.

I'm talking about Gunee and andros used for wife or woman and husband/man.

As can be shown from all these, it's either way.  The discussion has been going on for a long time and may not cease until Jesus comes.  Let us then as men and women serve God in whichever capacity He puts us.  Let it not be traditions of men that limit us in our service of the Master, the only One to whom we shall be accountable at that day.

Love and blessings to all.

NB. All I have shown is from the Word.  Do you ask for my own personal opinion?

@Analytical,

Analytical:

I am using a Parallel Translations Bible that has 10 different translations and comparing all of them, with their Greek lexicons, not just NIV.

It matters what sources those "translations" were patterned after. Most scholars will tell you that the NIV and kindred other "translations" cannot serve as study tools unless the student is looking for lines to buttress preconceived ideas.

Analytical:

You see, it depends on which translations you use, but more translations put Priscilla first.  Not that this means so much nor take anything away from either of them.  The truth is that Priscilla taught and pastored.

You haven't been able to establish this from any version or translation that Priscilla taught in the church.

Analytical:

I disagree with this.  The feminine Nympha predated later manuscripts that rendered it Nymphas.  In fact, you have to do something to it to make it masculine.

Take a simple test: if you are interested in the Greek language, ask yourself "what precedes what" between masculine and feminine constructs. The accents have to be added to make certain constructs feminine; and where scribes were not certain, rather than use a feminine, they used a neuter (it or them). This serves as well in the case in point; and I'm happy to see that not even the YLT (Young's Literal Translation) and ALT (Analytical Literal Translation) missed that reference.

Analytical:

The natural rendition of that name is that of a woman.  The reference to her house church made it clearer.  Consider the Greek used "oikon autees ekkleesian" meaning "her house church"!

As discussed just above - the YLT and ALT will point out the difference.

Analytical:

Stephen was so called, and Philip, they did not just serve tables, they taught.

I'll like some references, please.

Analytical:

The Greek word translated 'succour' is "prostatis" which according to Thayer's Greek Definitions also means "A woman set over others."   How can she be set over others and still be their waiter running errands?

This is what Thayer says:

προστάτις
prostatis
Thayer Definition:
1) a woman set over others
2) a female guardian, protectress, patroness, caring for the affairs of others and aiding them with her resources

What is wrong here is that some have taken this various meanings to mean that Pheobe was a teacher! This is just pushing the buck. If she was recognized as a patroness set over others to care for their affairs and aid them with (her) resources, how does that translate into teaching??

A kindred sense is given in both Heb. 2:18 and II Cor. 6:2 - both rendered succour and succoured in English, but carrying the very same understanding, as Thayer makes clear:

βοηθέω
boētheō
Thayer Definition:
1) to help, succour, bring aid

As you can see here, it does not convey the idea of teaching; rather, it points to bringing aid or help - in the same sense as Pheobe was recognised for and commended. It does not mean to teach, and to push that idea is to miss the point.

Analytical:

I'm talking about Gunee and andros used for wife or woman and husband/man.

As applied in their context, woman and man fits just the sense.

Analytical:

As can be shown from all these, it's either way.  The discussion has been going on for a long time and may not cease until Jesus comes.  Let us then as men and women serve God in whichever capacity He puts us.  Let it not be traditions of men that limit us in our service of the Master, the only One to whom we shall be accountable at that day.

Great help I've received, no doubt. And may God be sovereign over our ideas. Many blessings. 

Analytical:

NB. All I have shown is from the Word.  Do you ask for my own personal opinion?

Just like any other person's opinion, perhaps it may not be far wide of what I think. But do please share! 

Where does this Androgyny takes us? Nowhere.

My pastor is a Woman and a very powerful one if I may add. I do not have a problem with male or female pastors, as long as they preach the Word of the Lord as it was intended,

Powerful or not, they probably will not be able to tell you what the texts we've examined say.

neelsel:

Where does this Androgyny takes us? Nowhere.

My pastor is a Woman and a very powerful one if I may add. I do not have a problem with male or female pastors, as long as they preach the Word of the Lord as it was intended,

Any takers for powerful homosexual preachers? Or how about powerful preachers who steal, kill etc etc.

Indeed, they will do wonders in His name.

God bless

TV01:

Any takers for powerful homosexual preachers? Or how about powerful preachers who steal, kill etc etc.

Believe it or not, I've heard adherents of such leaders say precisely the very same thing as worded in neelsel. No harm meant to her, but it came as a surprise to read those lines in exactly as I've heard them defended by members of a homo-church leader:

"My pastor is gay, and a very powerful one if I may add. I do not have a problem with male or female pastors, as long as they preach the Word of the Lord as it was intended, . . ."

One such person defending that idea was asked by a friend about the texts the gay pastor used to defend his position. Guess what the answer was? "Look, it just doesn't matter. We should not criticise anybody as long as they're preaching Bible."(sic).

If that terse response held any substance, then for crying out loud, Reverend King should have been left alone - was he not "preaching Bible"??

Anybody can claim to be powerful; we owe ourselves the responsibility of checking out the sources of their claims.

Cheers.

hey there people, I'm guessing we've agreed to disagree over whether women are allowed to preach?
Anyway, TV01, so what if a pastor is gay (we're all free to do as we please), as long as he's teaching the Bible and stays away from Romans 1 ^24-32. And the Bible does tell us, in Mat. 7: 1 to not judge others, else we ourselves will be judged.

mihai:

. . . so what if a pastor is gay (we're all free to do as we please), as long as he's teaching the Bible and stays away from Romans 1 ^24-32. And the Bible does tell us, in Mat. 7: 1 to not judge others, else we ourselves will be judged.

Lol. . . good sense of humour!

The same bible says in 1 Corinthians 11:

11:31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.

11:32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.

mihai:

Anyway, TV01, so what if a pastor is gay (we're all free to do as we please), as long as he's teaching the Bible and stays away from Romans 1 ^24-32. And the Bible does tell us, in Mat. 7: 1 to not judge others, else we ourselves will be judged.

Actually, I think it says with what measure we judge, is the same we will be judged by. And not that old "do not judge argument". We are not to judge as in "condenm", but are to "judge rightly", to discern. If Christians can't judge, no one can.

Or did I just miss the Irony?

God bless.

if a woman wants to preach, well, good for her
i got other stuff to do. she can be my guest!!

lol, u did miss the irony. And actually, I'm completely accurate in what I said: Matthew 7: 1 says "Judge not, that ye be not judged."That's from the Sermon on the Mount.
ah, but who are you to say that you are worthy to judge anyone else? Your Christianity does not buy you a JD (juror's doctorate), neither does your Christianity make you God, nor Jesus, leave the judging to He who is Perfect. I have a feeling that no one is supposed to judge (at the very least not by God's Law, although of necessity, there is the law laid down by man, and, sometimes, enforced by man).
Lol Kellorah.
And Donzman, isn't that Paul talking about in what order people should eat?

mihai:


And Donzman, isn't that Paul talking about in what order people should eat?

Yeah he was actually talking about the communion. Now, think of what the communion signifies and pair it with that assertion about judgment.

In my opinion, it implies that to partake in the body of Christ, you need to judge yourself. In the event you do not do that, then you'll be judged in which case you should accept it.

Folks, some quick comments.  I don't intend to drag us back, but it appears I missed some comments.

@mihai

For all of that, though, this argument is very interesting. I think it would settle my doubts if someone found a quote by Jesus himself, though, because as someone said before (I'm not inclined to find the quote), Paul at times speaks as a man, working to build unity in the church.

What more quote do you require from Jesus himself when he said in Matt 28:19

19 “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,

20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”

This is a direct commandment from the mouth of Jesus himself, made at Galilee after ressurection, to those disciples that have gathered, men and women.  These were his parting words to go preach to all nations and make them disciples (verse 19) and teach the disciples made (verse 20).

@Shahan

Take a simple test: if you are interested in the Greek language, ask yourself "what precedes what" between masculine and feminine constructs. The accents have to be added to make certain constructs feminine; and where scribes were not certain, rather than use a feminine, they used a neuter (it or them).

Not all the time.  It's either way.  In this particular case, the accent has to be added to make it masculine.  I have said that before.  It's simply harder to make Nympha masculine.

On a lighter note, I was wondering before if Shahan is male or female.  I can see you've updated your profile accordingly because I was going to ask you. Is it not really funny that we have a female on the side of women not teaching and yours truly on the side of women teaching!  What a liberty Christ has brought us and what a fellowship we have in Him! 

But this is my own personal opinion.  Women can teach, minister or pastor in the church setting.  But when it comes to the final authority or leadership in the church, a man should take responsibility.  My opinion, this is. 

It is what I feel is the order in the scriptures.  Yes, there may be many teachers, ministers, pastors, evangelists, prophets etc in a local assembly, both male and female, but the final authority, or overseer, or bishop if you like, providing the spiritual guidance, should be a male, with a wife as a companion to him in the work- Timothy, Titus etc are examples.

My reasons are not far-fetched:

1.  That has always been the order in the scriptures.
2.  It is easier for a man to carry such huge responsibilities because of the way he is wired.  He has more brute strength than a woman.  It could be so tasking.
3.  A woman has her husband and kids to cater for- a no-less job for that matter, that adding the added responsibilities may be too much to carry and manage.
4.  A woman without a supportive husband will have a distraction, but a man already has a companion in his wife, hence the prescription that he (the bishop, shepherd) has to be the husband of one wife.
5.  Not a single woman in the 12 disciples that were to be pillars of the faith, as final authorities.
5.  A cursory look at those ministries/churches with a woman as the overall head has more than informed my opinion- they seem to be prone to scandals.  And something always seem to be missing.  I may be wrong.

Like I said, my opinion!

mihai:

but who are you to say that you are worthy to judge anyone else? Your Christianity does not buy you a JD (juror's doctorate), neither does your Christianity make you God, nor Jesus, leave the judging to He who is Perfect. I have a feeling that no one is supposed to judge (at the very least not by God's Law, although of necessity, there is the law laid down by man, and, sometimes, enforced by man).

Irony apart, I think you miss my point. So for example, is premarital sex wrong? One makes a judgement on that. That is to judge a situation not to condenm people. Likewise for teaching that does not align to scripture.

God bless

The letter of Paul to the Corrinthians was written about 55CE. Yes, it was to tackle to problem in the corrinthian congregation, which included, dissention or divisions, some said they were for Paul and others for Apollos, fornication which was about a son committing such with his father's wife, and church matters like gifts of the spirit, contributions and donations for the cause of the church etc.
But on the topic about if women should preach. The setting as asked is very broad, so making a categorical statement will be almost impossible. But for people like trini girl who seems to be a women lib, we have examples of Women who were prophetess in the 1st century congregation, I think the question should have been if women can teach in the church. Then the answer is NO. Because 1 tim. 3:1-11, precludes women in the appointment of teachers or overseers in God's congregation. Infact women were asked to learn in silence in Corrinth. But the scriptures allow women to teach their children, and preach to new converts.
My candid advice here is do not make a scriptural topic one of debate, beacuse debates produce fights and strife.

@ Analytical
Actually, those were all men
Matthew 28: 16 says "Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.
17: And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.
18: And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, 'All power is given unto me in heaven and earth, 

In other words, that statement, contrary to what some think, was directed specifically, at least as I see it, at the eleven apostles, who just so happened to be all male.

@ TV01
Yes, I'd say premarital sex is wrong, because I have the Bible to back me up . But then again, I'm not really judging, am I? I mean, there's no judgement to make, is there? I make no condemnation when I say I think premarital sex is wrong. I mean, is it wrong to have an opinion? I'm pretty sure Jesus didn't tell us not to judge others because he wanted us all to be automatons? As Matthew 7: 3 says, as our dear friend Donzman has pointed out, 'Why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?' Hence, you might judge yourself but not others, since you are NOT perfect. i.e. you'll always have a beam in your eye, so don't bother with the mote in another's eye, get yours out first .
Although, Donzman, I don't agree with everything you said (depends on who judges), yes, you might accept criticism, but also realize that NO ONE is fit to judge you but your Maker. I find it curious that Paul would use the word 'examine' instead of 'judge' (King James Version if you want to check), and I can't find anywhere were it says that we should accept judgement.

@mihai

Don't even go there. The Great Commission was given to his disciples, both men and women, at Galilee. Let's check the references.

Remember that at the tomb, the two Marys, who are also disciples, went early sunday morning and were met by an angel. Hear what the angel said unto them, just some verses above Matt. 28 vs. 20.

Matt. 28
5 The angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid; for I know that you are looking for Jesus who has been crucified.
6 “He is not here, for He has risen, just as He said. Come, see the place where He was lying. 7 “Go quickly and tell His disciples that He has risen from the dead; and behold, He is going ahead of you into Galilee, there you will see Him; behold, I have told you.”

Check out the words of Jesus to the same women:

10 Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid; go and take word to My brethren to leave for Galilee, and there they will see Me.”

And who are these His brethren or followers? The same people that had been with Him all these while, not just the eleven. How am I so sure? See the same account in Luke 24:

Luke 24:
5 and as the wome[/b]n were terrified and bowed their faces to the ground, the men said to them, “Why do you seek the living One among the dead?
6 “He is not here, but He has risen. Remember how He spoke to [b]you while He was still in Galilee,

9 and returned from the tomb and reported all these things to the eleven and to all the rest.
10 Now they were Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James; also the other women with them were telling these things to the apostles.

33 And they got up that very hour and returned to Jerusalem, and found gathered together the eleven and those who were with them

36 While they were telling these things, He Himself stood in their midst and said to them, “Peace be to you.”

Note what He said to them in verse 49:

49 “And behold, I am sending forth the promise of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.”

Now, let's go to the book of Acts. Mind you, both Gospel of Luke and Acts were written by the same author, Dr. Luke. So Acts is actually a sequel to Luke. So who are these same brethren, followers, or disciples commanded to stay in Jerusalem?

Acts 1:
4 Gathering them together, He commanded them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait for what the Father had promised, “Which,” He said, “you heard of from Me;

8 but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth.”

14 These[b] all [/b] with one mind were continually devoting themselves to prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers.
15 At this time Peter stood up in the midst of the brethren (a gathering of about one hundred and twenty persons was there together),

These were men and women, and not just the eleven disciples. However, see what Acts 2 says

Acts 2:
1 When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place.

14 But Peter, taking his stand with the eleven, raised his voice and declared to them:

Are there only the eleven? No. This is just emphasising that the eleven diciples were present, not that the were the only ones present. The same thing conveyed in Matt. 28 vs.16.

Comparing scriptures with scripture establishes the truth. Guess I have done enough.

It is now you are coming and i thing i am biggining to warm up for you

Thanks for the post, no offend intented so lets be cool together?

Still me

My brother, majority are far from the truth. Believe what the scriptures say and ignore the world. Women are not to teach the men, God has placed them under the authority of men. I'm happy you know the scripture that clearly states it. Let those who oppose give you a scriptural back up. If not ignore them and live a life of love. May God enlighthen us more, especially those of us who seek to understand his will for us through Jesus Christ. Amen.

i dnt think a woman shuld preach in d congregation of christian because the bible states that they should not excercise authority over the men so preaching in the congregation is completely ruled out in the bible but they can preach outside the congregation

Preach? Yes.

Teach in Church? Nope.

Preach ? Yes.

Teach in church? Yes.

Overall or final authority/head in home/church? Nope.

I believe a woman can preach.
The problem has always being the men who see ladies as either weak or sex objects.

But to me i think women will preach more convincingly if she is not on the pulpit.
The can lead other form of educating or advocating (politics,teaching & so on) that ok!

Again this leads us back to stop smoking weed.

How you do not see the difference between someone prophesying and preaching to a church?

The context of the word prophesying as you will agree means to teach, correct?

Of course we will all prophesy that Jesus is Lord

The context and responsibility of teaching, as taught in scriptures, goes far beyond simply saying that Jesus is Lord. Teaching is a ministry that is wide in range, and scope. As such women are very much apart of that ministry, and are entitled to be, and in most cases seem to do a better job at it anyway.

but many parts of the bible makes it clear what the role of women should be in the church

And if you and I are both reading the same bible, and I'd advise you to read it within a historical context as well, you'd have noticed that the era under which the bible was written was dominated by males, a patriarchal age in which women had little or no rights. From creation that wasn't the case because both Adam and Eve were both made equally. The mere fact that she was made from his side indicates that.  The rib as you would note comes from the side.

you can refer to my previous posts. It is in no means demeaning to be asked not to preach, there is no guarantee that the preacher will get in heaven before the congregation, heaven is the primary goal after all.

Thats not the purpose of the topic, and besides, under Jesus "there is neither male nor female, jew nor gentile, " Christ came to restore the repectability, and to remove the indignity that was heaped upon women back then.

Paul's comments about women in the city of Corinth, and in other locations, as it relates to them not teaching in the churches, was never meant to be a precedence for all women throughout all dispensations.

But of course you male chauvinists cannot see that, can you? 

@ Analytical

@mihai

Don't even go there. The Great Commission was given to his disciples, both men and women, at Galilee. Let's check the references.

Remember that at the tomb, the two Marys, who are also disciples, went early sunday morning and were met by an angel. Hear what the angel said unto them, just some verses above Matt. 28 vs. 20.


Quote
Matt. 28
5 The angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid; for I know that you are looking for Jesus who has been crucified.
6 “He is not here, for He has risen, just as He said. Come, see the place where He was lying. 7 “Go quickly and tell His disciples that He has risen from the dead; and behold, He is going ahead of you into Galilee, there you will see Him; behold, I have told you.”

Check out the words of Jesus to the same women:


Quote
10 Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid; go and take word to My brethren to leave for Galilee, and there they will see Me.”


And who are these His brethren or followers? The same people that had been with Him all these while, not just the eleven. How am I so sure? See the same account in Luke 24:


Quote
Luke 24:
5 and as the women were terrified and bowed their faces to the ground, the men said to them, “Why do you seek the living One among the dead?
6 “He is not here, but He has risen. Remember how He spoke to you while He was still in Galilee,

9 and returned from the tomb and reported all these things to the eleven and to all the rest.
10 Now they were Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James; also the other women with them were telling these things to the apostles.

33 And they got up that very hour and returned to Jerusalem, and found gathered together the eleven and those who were with them

36 While they were telling these things, He Himself stood in their midst and said to them, “Peace be to you.”

Note what He said to them in verse 49:


Quote
49 “And behold, I am sending forth the promise of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.”


Now, let's go to the book of Acts. Mind you, both Gospel of Luke and Acts were written by the same author, Dr. Luke. So Acts is actually a sequel to Luke. So who are these same brethren, followers, or disciples commanded to stay in Jerusalem?


Quote
Acts 1:
4 Gathering them together, He commanded them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait for what the Father had promised, “Which,” He said, “you heard of from Me;

8 but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth.”

14 These all with one mind were continually devoting themselves to prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers.
15 At this time Peter stood up in the midst of the brethren (a gathering of about one hundred and twenty persons was there together),

These were men and women, and not just the eleven disciples. However, see what Acts 2 says


Quote
Acts 2:
1 When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place.

14 But Peter, taking his stand with the eleven, raised his voice and declared to them:

Are there only the eleven? No. This is just emphasising that the eleven diciples were present, not that the were the only ones present. The same thing conveyed in Matt. 28 vs.16.

Comparing scriptures with scripture establishes the truth. Guess I have done enough.

Very good reasoning Analytical.

Bobbyaf:

The context of the word prophesying as you will agree means to teach, correct?

Rom 12:6-7
Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith; Or ministry, let us wait on our ministering: or he that teacheth, on teaching.

Bobbyaf:

Paul's comments about women in the city of Corinth, and in other locations, as it relates to them not teaching in the churches, was never meant to be a precedence for all women throughout all dispensations.

Paul's comments?

I Cor. 14:37 - "If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord."

Does not relate to teaching in the churches?

I Cor. 14:34-35
"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."

@ Trini_girl

Hi Osegwu,

Haba, more "personal" criticism.  Your criticism is welcome.  However, I assure you that I am by no means conflicted or confused about what I believe.

I agree. I find you to be refreshingly animated, not conflicted or confused.

Also, I had no idea people were "scared" of responding to my posts. I have not gotten that impression in the least.

Only goes to show how people see others who happen to disagree.

I also don't think it's fair, as I'm sure you will agree, to use my personality quirks (if you can call it that) as an indication or justification for women not being in positions of authority in the church.  

Very much agree with you on that!  

Perhaps I myself am not ready, but I'm sure there are many capable, scripture quoting women who have mastered the art of seething inwardly while politely giving a response with a smile, while their blood pressure hits the roof. Look at Shahan for example, she seems to be a well learned theologian.

Well, if that is the case she is not taking the biblical instructions not to teach men.  , whether outside a mere church building or not.  Of course she would argue otherwise as to what "in the churches" really mean.

For expressing my opinion I have been accused of all sorts of erroneous things.  I think I've handled it quite well. In fact, I truly found it amusing how ignorant people can be. The fact is, once you don't conform to what other people believe on this forum when it comes to christianity, you automatically become a feminist tool of the anti-christ, and people offer you many "prayers".

Exactly! And especially when they cannot get around you scripturally.  

I do not conform.  I do not need or want to "impress" anyone here by being a "sweet" woman.  I do not need to be liked by the men here. I aint lookin for a husband. I do not have to be agreeable and I sure as hell do not have to respect anyone who disrespects me. If people cannot realize this is only one side of me then too bad.

Maybe it's a Trini-African thing, but black women here express themselves without fear. RAH!  

It seems that the problem is I should not express my opinion about people's post by using words like "rubbish" and "nonsense".  But others have expressed that about my posts and I didn't consider it an insult. In fact, I found it funny.  People are just too sensitive, and need to grow up! This is just a place to exchange ideas for heaven sake, it's not real life!

The problem is they believe they own the forum.

In fact, I think I will disappear for a while.

Stay for heaven's sake! Just when I was beginning to enjoy some animation you had to quit on me.  

@ Shahan

It doesn't matter to you it seems that you quote out of context? If Paul were alive to day he'd have rebuked you.

Preach in Church: Yes

Teach in Church: Yes

@Bobbyaf,

Sorry, but no thanks. The reason why Paul wouldn't have rebuked me is that you're misquoting him and putting words in his mouth. Do I suspect that you conveniently missed the texts I offered because SDA is spearheaded by a woman (Ellen G. White)??