A Double Standard in Christianity?

[justbyfaith]

Because of the title...that's literally what it means. It's a function of the office of Deacon. That's why she was in Rome. She was there to teach as she was trained by Paul and sent with the letter. They were supposed to treat her the same as they would Paul. She knew the contents of the letter and she was to not only read it but teach the contents more thoroughly...to the church elders in Rome.

A deacon, traditionally, is the role that was given to the seven in Acts chapter 6:1-7.

While a deacon who operates in their position obtains great boldness in their ability to evangelize, the role itself is not traidtionally one where a deaconness is given the opportunity to teach or usurp authority over a man. If a deaconness is given an opportunity to teach a man, there is always a man over her as a covering (as was the case with Priscilla and Aquila) who can correct her in the case that she might be deceived on something.

Because, I will say again that I believe that women are more spiritually inclined and are therefore more inclined to accept a doctrine because it seems spiritually viable and appeals to the emotions.

Whereas men are more analytical and would be more inclined to examine the scriptures carefully on any given subject to make sure that they will be preaching sound doctrine in any teaching situation.

1Ti 2:13, For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
1Ti 2:14, And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

 

[LactoseIntolerant]

following is all in the NT, the early church as it is commonly called. this is in the Bible, no one is making it up. I guess you either believe what is written or you deny what is plainly written. it's your choice.


Paul greets Phoebe in Romans 16 as a deacon of the church and Junia, whom Paul addresses as prominent among the Apostles

Priscilla is acknowledged as a teacher along with her husband, Aquila in Acts 18. 26 in fact, Priscilla corrected Paul...and Paul took it

The four daughters of Philip are spoken of as exercising the gift of prophecy in the same verse, Acts 18

In Acts 18:26, Priscilla is acknowledged as a teacher, along with her husband Aquila

the four daughters of Philip in Acts 21:9, exercised the gift of prophecy or inspired speech. and they were not married

this is all in the New Testament, so all excuses or opinions stating that women should always be silent are obviously missing something

Phoebe was a deacon (servant of the church). Priscilla was a servant (helper in Christ), the 4 daughter were also servant (prophesying).

No doubt they are all servants of Christ. But they cannot be overseers (bishops).

Bishop qualifications
1 Tim 3:1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 2A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife (μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα), vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα is literally one woman man. I have found no translation as γυναικὸς ἄνδρα = woman man = marriage. All translation seem to be "one woman" man or man of one woman. This translation is supported by 1 Tim 5:9 talking about widows as "ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς" γυνή "one man" woman.

Deacon (from BSB)
1 Timothy 3:11 In the same way, the women must be dignified, not slanderers, but temperate and faithful in all things.

The KJV translates as wife, but that would make the sentence structure awkward. Also "women" NOT wife is consistent with Phoebe as being a deacon.

As for the overseer, there is little or no wiggle room to fit the marriage translation. The consensus translation is overwhelmingly "faithful man".
Before monarchial episcopacy, the overseer was the head of the local church. The guy who preached.

 

[Magenta]

Someone else also made this statement. I think that both of you are being too technical.

I rephrase the statement to say that every book of the Bible was penned by a male author and that none of them were female.

If you cannot say what you mean, it is hardly my fault!

And it remains that some authors are unknown...

 

[SophieT]

Phoebe was a deacon (servant of the church). Priscilla was a servant (helper in Christ), the 4 daughter were also servant (prophesying).

No doubt they are all servants of Christ. But they cannot be overseers (bishops).

Bishop qualifications
1 Tim 3:1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 2A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife (μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα), vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα is literally one woman man. I have found no translation as γυναικὸς ἄνδρα = woman man = marriage. All translation seem to be "one woman" man or man of one woman. This translation is supported by 1 Tim 5:9 talking about widows as "ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς" γυνή "one man" woman.

Deacon (from BSB)
1 Timothy 3:11 In the same way, the women must be dignified, not slanderers, but temperate and faithful in all things.

The KJV translates as wife, but that would make the sentence structure awkward. Also "women" NOT wife is consistent with Phoebe as being a deacon.

As for the overseer, there is little or no wiggle room to fit the marriage translation. The consensus translation is overwhelmingly "faithful man".
Before monarchial episcopacy, the overseer was the head of the local church. The guy who preached.

your twisting is what makes things awkward

and the best thing of all, is that God allows you to go and do that

you are following your heart

 

[justbyfaith]

If you cannot say what you mean, it is hardly my fault!

And it remains that some authors are unknown...

It certainly cannot be proven that any of the biblical authors were female.

 

[Dino246]

A deacon, traditionally, is the role that was given to the seven in Acts chapter 6:1-7.

Even though the word "deacon" does not appear anywhere in that passage.

While a deacon who operates in their position obtains great boldness in their ability to evangelize, the role itself is not traidtionally one where a deaconness is given the opportunity to teach or usurp authority over a man.

You still don't understand what "usurp" means. You make yourself look foolish when you use words that you don't understand.

If a deaconness is given an opportunity to teach a man, there is always a man over her as a covering (as was the case with Priscilla and Aquila) who can correct her in the case that she might be deceived on something.

And still, you promote an unbalanced and unbiblical view of covering.

Because, I will say again that I believe that women are more spiritually inclined and are therefore more inclined to accept a doctrine because it seems spiritually viable and appeals to the emotions.

That's already been refuted. You are repeating hogwash.

 

[Magenta]

It certainly cannot be proven that any of the biblical authors were female.

Nor can it be proven that all the authors were male. Your point?

So your statement:

... every book of the Bible was penned by a male author and that none of them were female.

Is an assumption.

 

[Dino246]

Phoebe was a deacon (servant of the church). Priscilla was a servant (helper in Christ), the 4 daughter were also servant (prophesying).

No doubt they are all servants of Christ. But they cannot be overseers (bishops).

Bishop qualifications
1 Tim 3:1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 2A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife (μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα), vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα is literally one woman man. I have found no translation as γυναικὸς ἄνδρα = woman man = marriage. All translation seem to be "one woman" man or man of one woman. This translation is supported by 1 Tim 5:9 talking about widows as "ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς" γυνή "one man" woman.

Deacon (from BSB)
1 Timothy 3:11 In the same way, the women must be dignified, not slanderers, but temperate and faithful in all things.

The KJV translates as wife, but that would make the sentence structure awkward. Also "women" NOT wife is consistent with Phoebe as being a deacon.

The fact that Phoebe was female and a deacon informs the qualifications given to Timothy. Paul could not possibly mean that deacons could only be male. The restriction is identical for deacons as for overseers: the men can only be one-woman men, and the text doesn't preclude female overseers.

 

[justbyfaith]

Even though the word "deacon" does not appear anywhere in that passage.

The word "Trinity" also doesn't appear anywhere in the Bible. Which is not to say that the doctrine doesn't exist in the Bible.

In the same manner, the doctrine about deacons is primarily spoken of in Acts 6:1-7.

And as usual, you reject the teaching of the Holy Spirit on this matter.

You still don't understand what "usurp" means. You make yourself look foolish when you use words that you don't understand.

I understand what it means perfectly; while I do not know that I can think of a synonym for it in the English language.

But when a throne is usurped, it is overthrown and someone takes over the position of authority that once belonged to the king.

So, determine from that what is the definition of "usurp"

And still, you promote an unbalanced and unbiblical view of covering.

No...it is simply a view that you disagree with.

That's already been refuted. You are repeating hogwash.

That view has been refuted, where? I must have missed it. Can you give the post # where it was refuted or else provide a link to the post?

 

[justbyfaith]

Nor can it be proven that all the authors were male. Your point?

So your statement:



Is an assumption.

No...

Give an example of a book of the Bible that you think may have been authored by a female and we will examine that claim.

Perhaps Ruth and Esther. I see no other possibilities.

Ruth may have been authored by Boaz and Esther by Mordecai.

 

[Dino246]

And as usual, you reject the teaching of the Holy Spirit on this matter.

Your ideas are NOT the teaching of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Magenta]

No...

Give an example of a book of the Bible that you think may have been authored by a female and we will examine that claim.

Perhaps Ruth and Esther. I see no other possibilities.

Ruth may have been authored by Boaz and Esther by Mordecai.

I have not said that any book was authored by a female.

In fact I have already conceded that it is most likely written by men.

You, on the other hand, refuse to admit your folly in asserting that they
were all written by men when some of the authors are unknown. You
present your opinion as if it is fact and that makes you wrong. Any of
the unknown authors could have been a woman for all you know.

 

[justbyfaith]

I have not said that any book was authored by a female.

In fact I have already conceded that it is most likely written by men.

You, on the other hand, refuse to admit your folly in asserting that they
were all written by men when some of the authors are unknown. You
present your opinion as if it is fact and that makes you wrong. Any of
the unknown authors could have been a woman for all you know.

I will accept that Ruth or Esther may have been written by the women with the names on the books in question.

However, if you look through the books of the Bible, I think that you will see that the books are primarily named after male prophets or apostles and I would say that it is most likely that the men whose names are on the books were the authors of the books.

I also sincerely doubt that Hebrews, for example, was written by a woman; because the writing style, to me, is reminiscent of a man.

If these things are merely my opinion, just realize that opinions have merit; and also that opinions have more merit when they have been opined by someone who has an unction from the holy one (1 John 2:20).

If your opinion is that you disagree, realize that you have not provided substantial evidence for your disagreement, either. You have merely cast doubt on the opinion of your opponent.

 

[Magenta]

I will accept that Ruth or Esther may have been written by the women with the names on the books in question.

However, if you look through the books of the Bible, I think that you will see that the books are primarily named after male prophets or apostles and I would say that it is most likely that the men whose names are on the books were the authors of the books.

I also sincerely doubt that Hebrews, for example, was written by a woman; because the writing style, to me, is reminiscent of a man.

If these things are merely my opinion, just realize that opinions have merit; and also that opinions have more merit when they have been opined by someone who has an unction from the holy one (1 John 2:20).

If your opinion is that you disagree, realize that you have not provided substantial evidence for your disagreement, either. You have merely cast doubt on the opinion of your opponent.

What part of U-N-K-N-O-W-N do you not understand?

 

[justbyfaith]

Your ideas are NOT the teaching of the Holy Spirit.

Says you and a woman.

Since the subject here is women being allowed to teach in church, i think that the woman has a vested interest in the issue and therefore a reason to reject the truth of the matter as being not of the Holy Spirit.

While the teaching in question is of the Holy Spirit and @Dino246 does his normal thing in rejecting the teaching of the Holy Spirit by putting his x's on it.

He will be held accountable on his day of judgment for all of his x's.

What will the judgment of the Lord be concerning the person who disagrees with Him at every juncture?

 

[justbyfaith]

What part of U-N-K-N-O-W-N do you not understand?

I have said what I have said on the matter and have taken the concept of UNKNOWN into account in my teaching on the matter.

 

[justbyfaith]

I also sincerely doubt that Hebrews, for example, was written by a woman; because the writing style, to me, is reminiscent of a man.

Apollos has been traditionally accepted as being a possible author of the book.

 

[justbyfaith]

What part of U-N-K-N-O-W-N do you not understand?

Also, what may be naturally unknown might be supernaturally known (1 John 2:20).

Not that a peripheral issue like this is even worth fighting over.

However, it is also written,

Luk 16:10, He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much.

So, even things that we might consider to be peripheral and even small (or least) may have an importance in the eternal scheme of things.

 

[Dino246]

If these things are merely my opinion, just realize that opinions have merit; and also that opinions have more merit when they have been opined by someone who has an unction from the holy one (1 John 2:20).

That is self-righteous hogwash intended to elevate your opinion to the level of evidence. I have news for you: it’s still just your opinion and still has no evidentiary value.

 

[Dino246]

What will the judgment of the Lord be concerning the person who disagrees with Him at every juncture?

Get this through your thick head:

You aren’t Him.