Making a case for women in leadership

I am calling you out as dishonest in this statement #298.
Please go back and read my post #272 again carefully.
You are misrepresenting me.

yes but a church is not a building it is the body of Christ meaning all of us and we do discuss and study together perhaps debate much more but it is still a church of sorts

There is the “church” universal as in Acts 2:47 where God adds to His church the ones that are being saved. Then, there is the church “assembled together.”, as in Acts 20:7, and 1 Cor. 14: 23 & 26. These are local congregations in various places. God recognizes “church assemblies.” of local congregations. Hebrews 10:25 tells us not to forsake the assembling of ourselves together. I Cor. 11 shows us the church “assembled ” as they took the Lord!s supper. He contrasts this “supper” in the assembled church with “eating at home” verse 22. We know this was a CHURCH ASSEMBLY by verse 18- “When you come together as a church.” So God makes a distinction between when the church is “assembled” together as a church and when it is “ dispersed.” It is NOT all the same, all the time. In Romans 16:16 Paul says, “the churches (congregations) of Christ salute you.” When God makes a distinction, we must also.

English Standard Version
1 Cor. 11:3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.
Whenever such a scripture says things like this without any notations to leadership, it's always about husband & wife. Here's another:
1 Timothy 2 NAS
Instructions for Believers

8Therefore I want the men in every place to pray, lifting up holy hands, without anger and dispute. 9Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, [g]modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or expensive apparel, 10but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness. 11A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. 12But I do not allow a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13For it was Adam who was first [h]created, and then Eve. 14And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman was deceived and [j]became a wrongdoer. 15But [k]women will be [l]preserved through [m]childbirth—if they continue in faith, love, and sanctity, with moderation.

2 important facts to note:
1. This is to all believers. Nothing is mentioned about any hierarchy or leadership roles.
2. V13-15 specifically starts about Adam & Eve, husband & wife, & finishes with woman's preservation thru childbirth.
The context both above & below speaks only about family matters.
Now for the word usurp(KJV). That means in this context the wife taking illegal or improper authority over her husband.
In layman's terms a controlling wife. The age-old problem in many marriages that has happened for centuries..... A henpecking wife telling her husband what to do.
The husband is the spiritual head, spiritually responsible & answering to God for the marriage & family relationship. This is why Adam was blamed by God instead of Eve.

No apology for your provably and proven false accusations?

When I said "In the earliest decades, there was only word of mouth" I was referring to the gap between the life of Jesus, and writing of the letters and the Gospels. When I said "Jesus was fine with that" I was referring to the lack of known recording of his sayings to writing.
You are misrepresenting me.

let me ask you this are there two types of churches? whether one is assembled or not does it really matter? the church of God is not defined by whether they are assembled or not it is a matter of whether it is the church or it isn't no need to overcomplicate it.
Regardless of whetherr it is assembled or not no matter how you try to interpret the scriptures which by the way do not seem to imply your view of it I think it is important to distinct whether a church is the body of christ or if it is the assembled body of Christ which would require an entirely different topic

So it doesn't matter if it is assembled or not the church is the body of Christ

You misrepresented your own self. It is not my fault if you fail to say what you mean.

I will pray for you.

It is true that the church is the body of Christ all the time. But it does matter whether the church is assembled or dispersed. There are certain things that can only be done when the church is assembled—like taking the Lord’s supper. In Acts 20:7, that is why they came together, to take the Lord’s supper. The church was also to take up a collection on the 1st day of the week 1 Cor. 16:2. It was an order for all of the churches, everywhere, according to Paul (1 Cor. 4:17) and 1 Cor. 16:1-2. When they came together in an assembly, they were to exercise church discipline, by withdrawing from wayward members who won’t repent. See 1 Cor 5:4-5, and 2 Thess3:6. Paul persecuted the church of God, this is spoken of in several places, 1 Cor. 15:9, Gal, 1:13, and Phil. 3:5 but in Acts 9, it says he was persecuting the church when he entered private houses, dragging out men and women and putting them in prison. So here, he is talking about the church as it is dispersed in the world. I’m only trying to make the point that God makes a distinction of times when the church is assembled in a church service and dispersed in society and their private homes. He recognizes both, the universal church of Christ and individual congregations like the church at Corinth, and the individual congregations mentioned in the first 3 chapters of Revelation; God recognizes the church when it is assembled together Acts 20:7 and when it is dispersed in private homes, Acts 8:3.

ok fair point now my next question is if one still considers the body as the church the fact it is a type of church is it unbiblical for women to teach even though we are not assembled? after all the fact that it is a church should mean the same rules apply and also if one is to take Pauls words to heart then by all accounts it is wrong for a women to speak in general is it not? the scriptures do not say only when assembled they speak of women teaching in general

In 1 Timothy 2, yes, the instructions are for men and women anywhere and everywhere— assembled or dispersed. However, in verse 12 when Paul says a woman is not to teach, it is qualified by having authority OVER a man. So consider what would be situations where she would be in a position of authority OVER a man? She is not to teach in such a situation as that. I know that women can teach, as long as they are NOT in authority over a man because we have another scripture by the Holy Spirit that Commands women to teach—Titus 2:4- “ …the older women, likewise, that they be …teachers of good things—that they admonish ( teach) the younger women to…”. We know the Holy Spirit does not contradict Himself, but that’s what He would be guilty of if He is telling women in 1 Timothy that they cannot teach at all under any circumstances but then COMMAND them to TEACH in Titus 2:4. See the problem? So, I think that demands us to look again at 1 Tim to see exactly what He is saying. He does qualify the kind of teaching she is not to do in 1 Tim. by saying she is not to have authority over a man. I believe we have authority for women to teach other women and children ( 1 Tim 1:5). Timothy’s father was a Greek, so it seems he was taught his faith by his mother and grandmother who were both Jewish. We do have an example of a woman (Priscilla) helping to teach another man ( Apollos) in a private home study along with her husband in Acts 18:24-28. Even in a home Bible study, she would not need to be the one “in charge “ of the study if there were men present.

Of course, in 1 Corinthians 14, there is no doubt that Paul is addressing his instructions specifically for the church when it is assembled together verses 23 & 26. This verse 34 leaves no doubt that women preachers in the church are directly contrary to what God says in His word.

In 1 Timothy 2, yes, the instructions are for men and women anywhere and everywhere— assembled or dispersed. However, in verse 12 when Paul says a woman is not to teach, it is qualified by having authority OVER a man. So consider what would be situations where she would be in a position of authority OVER a man? She is not to teach in such a situation as that. I know that women can teach, as long as they are NOT in authority over a man because we have another scripture by the Holy Spirit that Commands women to teach—Titus 2:4- “ …the older women, likewise, that they be …teachers of good things—that they admonish ( teach) the younger women to…”. We know the Holy Spirit does not contradict Himself, but that’s what He would be guilty of if He is telling women in 1 Timothy that they cannot teach at all under any circumstances but then COMMAND them to TEACH in Titus 2:4. See the problem? So, I think that demands us to look again at 1 Tim to see exactly what He is saying. He does qualify the kind of teaching she is not to do in 1 Tim. by saying she is not to have authority over a man. I believe we have authority for women to teach other women and children ( 1 Tim 1:5). Timothy’s father was a Greek, so it seems he was taught his faith by his mother and grandmother who were both Jewish. We do have an example of a woman (Priscilla) helping to teach another man ( Apollos) in a private home study along with her husband in Acts 18:24-28. Even in a home Bible study, she would not need to be the one “in charge “ of the study if there were men present.

Of course, in 1 Corinthians 14, there is no doubt that Paul is addressing his instructions specifically for the church when it is assembled together verses 23 & 26. This verse 34 leaves no doubt that women preachers in the church are directly contrary to what God says in His word.

It is quite unlikely that the Greek word “authentein” means “have authority over” in the normal sense. It is far more likely it has a specific culturally relevant meaning that is not obvious to 21st century English readers… or anyone else not in that particular culture.

I wonder if the whole cultural distrust of women as leaders in Judea in 33-100 A.D. stems from blaming Eve for the Fall, when Adam was right there.. listening to the Serpent tempt her (Genesis 3:6). The Fall was a joint thing between man and woman, but sadly there are people who want to pin the blame on Eve.. sigh.

So it really just boils down to authority then?

why would a God who is suppose to love us so much that He died for us, ,, give us a book that contained a message that had a “specific culturally relevant meaning that is NOT OBVIOUS to (us) 21 century English readers…or anyone else not in that particular culture.”? WOW!! For what purpose?? How useless would His book be to us if this was true? Is God not able to give us a book that we can understand? That impeaches the power” of God. Does God not care about us enough to give us a book whose meaning is “obvious” to us 21st century English readers?? That impeaches the “love” of God. Do you think God is trying to “trick” us? I see no reason for God to do such a thing. Why would He deliberately be so obscure, that we could not possibly understand His meaning? How foolish to accuse God of such a thing!