Quote Originally Posted by jade84116 View Post
1 Timothy 3:2, KJV, states: "A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach." The same thing is said regarding Deacons in 1 Timothy 3 and Elders in ***us 1 I believe. Okay, Isaiah refers to a prophetess, but she's thought to be Isaiah's wife by most Bible scholars.
What's your excuse for Deborah and Huldah?


Okay, Romans 16 could be viewed as making women Apostles and Deacons,
Also patronesses (Gk. prostatis), a role which traditionally involved teaching, esp., e.g., when applied to the courier of a letter.


but that would contradict 1 Timothy 3
Maybe. Depends on one's starting ***umptions.


and the women in Romans 16 are plainly presented as wives and relatives there.
1) Not so "plainly."

2) So what?


If women are one flesh with their husbands, then, they can be called by their husband's priesthood office without actually holding that office in their own right, a principle that squares difficult p***ages with 1 Timothy 3:2 and such like.
1) That is "reading into" the text, at least as much as is any egalitarian solution.

2) The notion that there even IS a "priesthood" (other than the universal believers' priesthood) in the NT is dubious at best.


In the end, 1 Timothy 2:12, KJV, states: "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." It's impossible to square Women Pastors with that verse!
IF it is translated properly, and IF it is intended to be universal as opposed to situational, and IF we are to apply it exactly as written, then it is impossible to "square it" with Rom. 16, Col. 4:15, 2 John 1:1, Acts 18:26, Gal. 3:26, Acts 2:17-18, Jud. 4:4, 2 Ki. 22:14, and probably more.