Assuming they were in the temple when all this happens is a pretty big assumption. They continued in the temple, but they also gathered in a certain location. Of course church tradition puts that at the upper room, which has a church structure built on it. if I remember the details right, there is a first century Jewish-synagogue style structure underneath it with the Torah niche facing the Tomb of the Holy Sepulchre, made from the same kind of stone as the temple wall, the traditional resurrection site, instead of towards the temple mount. There is a place that could be used for Christian baptism/Jewish mikveh there. I read there was 'Christian grafitto' at the first century level. Tradition says St. James ministered there, that John Mark's mother's house was at this location, the location of the upper room. I am thinking there may be a tradition it was the Pentecost site, though Google isn't specific enough these days to help me out much with that for the amount of time I have. These are traditions for what they are worth, and archeological finds.
In chapter 2, they are in the upper room, then chapter 2 talks about the place that they were sitting. Could Luke have switched venues without telling the reader? I suppose so. I imagine crowds out in the streets which are full because of the feast. But one might imagine the temple courts. That isn't specified.
It seems less likely that Luke changed the venue without telling us. It's really a matter of Greek. If 'man' can mean 'individual' or 'people', then can a word for every man mean everybody, as the way the word was generally used? I suppose a Greek scholar would likely have some kind of insight into that. And one might want to look at broader Greek usage, which includes the LXX translation of the Old Testament-- good for Judeo-Christian terminology in Greek, while this is probably more generic-- or occurrences the body of Greek literature that exists.. It would be time consuming, but I could try to find the word in the LXX. I sent a request to a friend with a PhD in theology on Facebook. I do not know how much he focused on Greek. I just remembered and messaged someone who got a doctorate at Trinity who writes papers on the Gospels, and I messaged him about this. They may show some other evidence on this.
It may be something you can't really prove solidly either way. But I have not read Mussie's book. I wonder if the adjective v. noun argument of his you mentioned holds up when looking at parallel issues with other words. Insisting all the baptizees be men and insisting on a temple location may be a bit of a stretch. The writer and some readers may have had some background information in common with Luke.
Originally, gender was a language category from languages like this, not sex like male or female. From what I've read, an early trans surgery promoter put 'gender' into the language as a male-female thing, attached to his weird medical mad scientist stuff that is so popular today. All of us who have been using 'gender' as a handy word to talk about the distinction between male and female so we don't have to say 'sex' in front of mixed company, or mom, or grandma adapted the word for polite use. It's kind of like how 'homosexuall' was coined in German about inclination not activity and Bible translations use the English equivalent for doers of the associated sin.
I am no expert on Greek, but the gender often matches the sex for human beings, but with something like 'every man', I don't know. And male plurals can include females across a number of languages.
Arguing for that grammatically seems to me to be rather silly. It always had, though I've seen it done. I asked a UNC Greek scholar contact of mine, a Christian doing a teaching ministry, about this and he said he'd say about 70% he'd say it might refer to the 120, about 30% it might refer to the apostles. Just like English, we look at the larger concepts to see who 'they' is. In this case, there is no grammatical smoking gun, or so I ascertain from his comment and the arguing over this point from various people.
The question is what is the meaning of the prohibition and what does it refer to. Of course, there are a few manuscripts that put the instructions to women after verse 40, after the 'commandment of the Lord' verse, so if your argument is 'command of the Lord' trumps what Paul was saying in verse 40, that is something to consider.
So what does he mean? No amens? No singing songs? No engaging in the aforementioned mutually edifying activities (your position)? Could he be referring to a specific problem that had to do with asking questions in appropriately and either creating a disturbance or doing something that challenged their husbands role? Again, the reasoning here is women can prophecy, it is one of the activities in the passage, it is for the overall profit of the church. If there is some venue where women can exercise this gift, then what keeps it from being 'church'? Can only less than three people present? Does the whole city have to gather?
If you have a gathering with less than all the saints of the city, would all the I Corinthians 14 restrictions apply 'when ye all come together into one place' in verse 26, but Paul writes the letter broadly to all who believe in Jesus also, while addressing it to the church in Corinth.
Where do you get that? There is one reference to 'psalms' that I can think of-- okay so a little reference to praise. But I see no references to prostration (traditionally translated 'worship' more often than other words) except for the hypothetical unbelieving or unlearned visitor, maybe. If you mean 'worship' in the service sense, there is no reference to a rigid liturgy, or scripted antiphonal singing or such as that.
In chapter 2, they are in the upper room, then chapter 2 talks about the place that they were sitting. Could Luke have switched venues without telling the reader? I suppose so. I imagine crowds out in the streets which are full because of the feast. But one might imagine the temple courts. That isn't specified.
It seems less likely that Luke changed the venue without telling us. It's really a matter of Greek. If 'man' can mean 'individual' or 'people', then can a word for every man mean everybody, as the way the word was generally used? I suppose a Greek scholar would likely have some kind of insight into that. And one might want to look at broader Greek usage, which includes the LXX translation of the Old Testament-- good for Judeo-Christian terminology in Greek, while this is probably more generic-- or occurrences the body of Greek literature that exists.. It would be time consuming, but I could try to find the word in the LXX. I sent a request to a friend with a PhD in theology on Facebook. I do not know how much he focused on Greek. I just remembered and messaged someone who got a doctorate at Trinity who writes papers on the Gospels, and I messaged him about this. They may show some other evidence on this.
It may be something you can't really prove solidly either way. But I have not read Mussie's book. I wonder if the adjective v. noun argument of his you mentioned holds up when looking at parallel issues with other words. Insisting all the baptizees be men and insisting on a temple location may be a bit of a stretch. The writer and some readers may have had some background information in common with Luke.
Originally, gender was a language category from languages like this, not sex like male or female. From what I've read, an early trans surgery promoter put 'gender' into the language as a male-female thing, attached to his weird medical mad scientist stuff that is so popular today. All of us who have been using 'gender' as a handy word to talk about the distinction between male and female so we don't have to say 'sex' in front of mixed company, or mom, or grandma adapted the word for polite use. It's kind of like how 'homosexuall' was coined in German about inclination not activity and Bible translations use the English equivalent for doers of the associated sin.
I am no expert on Greek, but the gender often matches the sex for human beings, but with something like 'every man', I don't know. And male plurals can include females across a number of languages.
Arguing for that grammatically seems to me to be rather silly. It always had, though I've seen it done. I asked a UNC Greek scholar contact of mine, a Christian doing a teaching ministry, about this and he said he'd say about 70% he'd say it might refer to the 120, about 30% it might refer to the apostles. Just like English, we look at the larger concepts to see who 'they' is. In this case, there is no grammatical smoking gun, or so I ascertain from his comment and the arguing over this point from various people.
The question is what is the meaning of the prohibition and what does it refer to. Of course, there are a few manuscripts that put the instructions to women after verse 40, after the 'commandment of the Lord' verse, so if your argument is 'command of the Lord' trumps what Paul was saying in verse 40, that is something to consider.
So what does he mean? No amens? No singing songs? No engaging in the aforementioned mutually edifying activities (your position)? Could he be referring to a specific problem that had to do with asking questions in appropriately and either creating a disturbance or doing something that challenged their husbands role? Again, the reasoning here is women can prophecy, it is one of the activities in the passage, it is for the overall profit of the church. If there is some venue where women can exercise this gift, then what keeps it from being 'church'? Can only less than three people present? Does the whole city have to gather?
If you have a gathering with less than all the saints of the city, would all the I Corinthians 14 restrictions apply 'when ye all come together into one place' in verse 26, but Paul writes the letter broadly to all who believe in Jesus also, while addressing it to the church in Corinth.
Where do you get that? There is one reference to 'psalms' that I can think of-- okay so a little reference to praise. But I see no references to prostration (traditionally translated 'worship' more often than other words) except for the hypothetical unbelieving or unlearned visitor, maybe. If you mean 'worship' in the service sense, there is no reference to a rigid liturgy, or scripted antiphonal singing or such as that.
