A Double Standard in Christianity?

Since God didn't mandate female prophets be working under men in the OT, I see no need to do so without scripture evidence in the NT.
Acts 2 plainly says daughters & handmaidens would minister prophecy by the Holy Spirit, so we need to understand that ANY prophetic utterance that's Spirit led is allowable, including teaching & preaching.
Many can say women shouldn't preach, but they can't use absolute, correct scripture to back their claims.
The best anyone can do is abuse the scriptures about husband/wife relationships to negate them. This is a very sorry excuse when some of our best scripture handlers on CC will flimsily squeeze out a single verse out of context to prove their point.
Using terrible TV preachers as examples when most of them are men hardly proves the point either.

If you study carefully, it is possible to come to the correct conclusions.
1. There is authority structure, even in heaven. The Son defers to the Father, who has placed all things under the authority of the Son.
2. The Holy Spirit effectively serves the Son (Read John 16)
3. Church government is by elders. The role of pastor is greatly overstated.
4. Children obey their parents. I realise that roles have been reversed these days.
5. Wives submit to husbands. That means if he says no to buying a new car, that's it.
6. Husbands submit to Christ. And love your wives. No man should be a micromanaging control freak. That is not love
7. Authorities - governments and police - should be obeyed unless they are requiring you to disobey God.
8. Each Christian has a place in the body. Each Christian should be in submission to the body. Pastors are a member of the choir, not the leader.
9. Younger Christians (in maturity, not age) should be willing to take advice from the older.

I don't listen to Joyce Meyer all that often, but she is a great example of how to be a teacher to the body of Christ and yes, gasp, a woman. She preaches and teaches outside of the local church. She speaks mostly to women, although men can be edified and blessed also. She preaches and practices submission to her husband. I don't agree with everything, but hey, no one is perfect. I may well be wrong. I do not believe that it is inherently wrong to have money. She writes a lot, people don't have to buy her books, and yes, she makes a living. She pays her staff, as she should. The worker is worthy of their wage . The organisation's books are open.

So changing the word "husband" to suit your sensibilities.

You have enough discernment to know abominations? I doubt that.
There is no need for further responses. I think I have learned all need from you. I leave you with the last words.

and ignoring all other scripture while presenting this one only is not going to make biblical doctrine either

just don't see 1 Timothy 2:11-12 as being all that hard to understand.

Apparently you have no idea what the logical deductions are from these scriptures...

That's all you have demonstrated up to this point.

I quoted the NASB.

So who wrote the letter to Timothy?
What was their relationship?
Would you characterize it as formal or informal?
Did Paul have a history of sarcasm?
Where was Timothy serving when he got this letter?

Did Roman men practice polygamy?
Did Roman men often have consorts ,(girlfriends) ?
Would Paul perceive the consorts as wives...in spite of their tag of consort?

Since most women couldn't read wouldn't it stand to reason that Paul didn't expect for Timothy to find any women capable of leadership?
And since pen, ink, and paper were horribly expensive wouldn't it stand to reason that Paul would write the letter in as brief a format and style as possible?

Where do you get the understanding that Apollos was a Greek; when scripture plainly identifies him as a Jew?

Are you just trying to pull me into a conversation here that goes nowhere? Arguing for some point knowing that it is not valid, thinking to draw me away into a fruitless argument?

That has happened to me before, with @Dino246.

Just wondering if that is also what you are trying to do.

Because your argument clearly has no leg to stand on.

All speculation.

These are all pertinent questions and part of hermeneutics. There are no wasted words in scripture...each word is precious...none of it is to be glossed over. (As you have done)

Because if you did answer those questions the truth I've stated is proven and you would have to repent...which I'm thinking that you don't do on a regular basis...whether willingly or not I don't know.

Nope...
Part of the hermeneutics process. Basic hermeneutics of who, what, when, where and why.

Context is King when reading scriptures...and these questions set the context.

I repent any and every time that I need to do so...which is getting farther and fewer between because I am running out of things to repent for.

If you can show in holy scripture that Apollos was a Greek, I am ready to repent before the eyes of everyone here.

But if you had scripture on such a thing, there would be a contradiction in holy scripture...which I don't think that there is any such thing...so I don't think you have an answer.

But if you have one, then by all means give it.

I know that you are just wanting me to waste my energy in order to win a fruitless argument, however.

But I will expend the energy in order to keep my track record.

Luk 21:15, For I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist.

Act 6:10, And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake.

Who, what, where, when and why does not, ever, change the plain meaining of a passage as you might read it with all of the added information. This is a basic rule of hermeneutics.

Who, what, where, when and why does not, ever, change the plain meaining of a passage as you might read it with all of the added information. This is a basic rule of hermeneutics.

Hellenistic Jews...
Do you know what that is?
Do you know how that matters?
Do you ever think that you can be wrong?

It's not to change anything anywhere at anytime...it's to keep things understood in context and not twist them out to mean something that was never intended....every word is precious.

So who wrote the letter to Timothy?
What was their relationship?
Would you characterize it as formal or informal?
Did Paul have a history of sarcasm?
Where was Timothy serving when he got this letter?

Did Roman men practice polygamy?
Did Roman men often have consorts ,(girlfriends) ?
Would Paul perceive the consorts as wives...in spite of their tag of consort?

Since most women couldn't read wouldn't it stand to reason that Paul didn't expect for Timothy to find any women capable of leadership?
And since pen, ink, and paper were horribly expensive wouldn't it stand to reason that Paul would write the letter in as brief a format and style as possible?

The NASB has been corrupted; I can prove from it that Jesus is satan, as I have said.

By all means show the scripture where it says that Apollos was a Hellenistic Jew.