A list of every man who has served in the House of Represenatives

I noticed you also cite the names of the women, not just the men.

 

It is not PC, it is being inclusive of women. Simply put, it is kindness.

I have heard from many women about this over the years (I had to ask), and nearly all of them appreciated hearing women acknowledged as equal and valued members of whatever group I was referring to. Too many times we have preached and ignored the women in the story. If we pay close attention to Jesus in the gospels, you will see that women were a vital part of His ministry -- walking with Him from the beginning as disciples -- and present for almost every event except for things like the Transfiguration. And they were the first to see Jesus resurrected and report the news. They play a role at Pentecost, speaking in tongues and preaching, and they were extremely involved in the organization and membership of the New Testament church.

 

Please show me the the bible verses where they were preaching to mixed groups if that is what you meant.

 

I too am a sinner, needing to be better. Look to Jesus instead of simply accepting who you currently are.

 

First, let's briefly establish what Jesus thought of women participating in His ministry:

Jesus traveled with, taught to, and preached to mixed groups:

Soon afterward, Jesus began going around from one city and village to another, proclaiming and preaching the kingdom of God. The twelve were with Him, and also some women who had been healed of evil spirits and sicknesses: Mary who was called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, and Joanna the wife of Chuza, Herod’s steward, and Susanna, and many others who were contributing to their support out of their private means. - Luke 8:1-3

Now as they were traveling along, He entered a village; and a woman named Martha welcomed Him into her home. And she had a sister called Mary, who was also seated at the Lord’s feet, and was listening to His word. But Martha was distracted with all her preparations; and she came up to Him and said, “Lord, do You not care that my sister has left me to do the serving by myself? Then tell her to help me.” But the Lord answered and said to her, “Martha, Martha, you are worried and distracted by many things; but only one thing is necessary; for Mary has chosen the good part, which shall not be taken away from her.” - Luke 10:38-42 (NOTE: A lot of people miss the main point of this passage focusing on Martha being fussy. What was happening here was a subversion of gender roles. Men sat at the feet of a rabbi and listened, while women were sent away to prepare food, serve, and do other things related to hospitality. Mary had decided to join the men, and Martha was surprised that Jesus had not sent her away, leaving her to serve alone. Jesus rejected the gender norms of His day.)​

Now, let's look at Pentecost:

[Immediately after the Ascension] ...they returned to Jerusalem from the mountain called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath day’s journey away. When they had entered the city, they went up to the upstairs room where they were staying, that is, Peter, John, James, and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, Simon the Zealot, and Judas the son of James. All these were continually devoting themselves with one mind to prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers...

...When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place. And suddenly a noise like a violent rushing wind came from heaven, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. And tongues that looked like fire appeared to them, distributing themselves, and a tongue rested on each one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with different tongues, as the Spirit was giving them the ability to speak out. Now there were Jews residing in Jerusalem, devout men from every nation under heaven. And when this sound occurred, the crowd came together and they were bewildered, because each one of them was hearing them speak in his own language. They were amazed and astonished, saying, “Why, are not all these who are speaking Galileans? And how is it that we each hear them in our own language to which we were born? ...

"...we hear them speaking in our own tongues of the mighty deeds of God." And they all continued in amazement and great perplexity, saying to one another, “What does this mean?” But others were jeering and saying, “They are full of sweet wine!” But Peter, taking his stand with the other eleven, raised his voice and declared to them: “Men of Judea and all you who live in Jerusalem, know this, and pay attention to my words. For these people are not drunk, as you assume, since it is only the third hour of the day; but this is what has been spoken through the prophet Joel:

‘And it shall be in the last days,’ God says,
‘That I will pour out My Spirit on all mankind;
And your sons and your daughters will prophesy,
And your young men will see visions,
And your old men will have dreams;
And even on My male and female servants
I will pour out My Spirit in those days,
And they will prophesy. - Acts 1:12-14; 2:1-8, 11-18

(NOTE: The text explicitly indicates female followers of Jesus were in the Upper Room along with the men (just like when they all traveled with Jesus). The text does not explicitly state that they spoke with tongues and prophesied before the crowds at Pentecost, but the text also does not say they didn't. The natural reading of the text is that all who were in the Upper Room experienced the signs of fire and tongues, and all prophesied. But to eliminate any doubt about the issue, Peter's Spirit-inspired sermon points to the prophecy in Joel that says, twice, that daughters/females will prophesy (aka preach), which seems to be definitive evidence that all of Joel's prophecy was now actively being fulfilled.

Let's take a quick look at Priscilla/Prisca, an early teacher in the church:
In ancient literature, it is quite unusual for women to be mentioned outside of female-only activities. It is nearly unprecedented for a woman's name to be mentioned before her husband's name, and it indicates relative priority in the context of whatever is happening.

We see Paul sharing greetings from various people to the church in Corinth, and Aquila is listed before Priscilla/Prisca in a standard greeting:
The churches of Asia greet you. Aquila and Prisca greet you heartily in the Lord, with the church that is in their house.
- 1 Corinthians 16:19

In Acts where Luke recounts Paul meeting Aquilla and Priscilla/Prisca, Luke ensures that Priscilla is also introduced:
And he found a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus having recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to leave Rome. - Acts 18:2

In the passages where Paul talking about, or referenced with, his ministry coworkers, we see a pattern:
Greet Prisca and Aquila, and the household of Onesiphorus. Erastus remained at Corinth, but I left Trophimus sick at Miletus. - 2 Timothy 4:19-20

Greet Prisca and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus... - Romans 16:3

Now Paul, when he had remained many days longer, took leave of the brothers and sisters and sailed away to Syria, and Priscilla and Aquila were with him. - Acts 18:18a

And then when we see Priscilla/Prisca pull aside Apollos to help him with his theology, Priscilla apparently took the lead in teaching Apollos:
But when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained the way of God more accurately to him. - Acts 18:26b

Additional women in the church that we know who prophesied/preached:
Women in Corinth, but they were supposed to have their head covered:
But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head...- 1 Corinthians 11:5
(NOTE: The context for Paul's teaching here is that women who had their head covered in Greco-Roman society were the most esteemed in society. Only elite women were allowed to cover their heads. Non-citizens, slaves and prostitutes were not allowed to cover their heads. But in the meetings of the church -- an outpost of the Kingdom of God -- all women were honored as full citizens - no one was a slave.)

The four unmarried daughters of Philip the evangelist:
On the next day we left and came to Caesarea, and we entered the house of Philip the evangelist, who was one of the seven, and stayed with him. Now this man had four virgin daughters who were prophetesses. - Acts 21:8-9

--
In conclusion, Jesus included women in His ministry and violated the gender norms of the day by taking on women as disciples. At Pentecost, women participated in the miracle sign of tongues and prophesied. Peter pointed to the prophecy in the book of Joel to explain what had happened to the crowd. Paul considered Priscilla/Prisca to be a co-laborer, and it is clear she was a teacher to at least one very influential preacher, Apollos. Paul makes it clear that women prophesied in Corinth, as part of the context for his teaching on head coverings and the social order. And the four daughters of Philip the Evangelist were notable for being prophetesses/preachers.

Does that help you?​

 

Prophesy like the verb does not necessarily mean to preach, could mean like uttering supernatural messages from God which was what was happening frequently during the Acts period per the references you provided. Just like tongues, healing, word of wisdom, and other supernatural gifts.

Yes Jesus preached to mixed groups.
The Luke 8 passage says the women contributed support, not that they preached.
The Luke 10 passage says the women listened at Jesus' feet, not that they preached or prophesied.
Priscilla and Aquila "fellow workers" the text does not specify that they preached together or that even Priscilla preached.
They explained the word more clearly to Apollos privately not in a crowd. Acts 18:26

"violated the gender norms of the day by taking on women as disciples." Interesting choice of words but a woman was not one of the12 that is, they were part of the group of followers. Really violated (using your term) the gender norm would be having a woman as one of the 12.

This is the verse that does not fit today's culture, which you might say we are now, by God's leading, progressing beyond the mandate of the New Testament:

But I suffer not a woman to teach,
nor to usurp authority over the man,
but to be in silence.
1Timothy 2:12

 

He did a lot more than that regarding women vs. the social/religious customs.

Yes, I'm simply point out that women were part of His group of disciples. Sometimes we read and preach that Jesus had "12 disciples", when He actually had hundreds of disciples (if not more).

The Twelve were leaders symbolically chosen to represent the 12 tribes of Israel who followed God through the wilderness into the Promised Land. (Yes, Jesus was symbolically, and literally, God in their midst.)

Actually it was ONE woman, Mary, who sat at the feet of Jesus.

Don't you understand that I never claimed any of those women around Jesus preached? Did you notice at the men didn't either? The only time the disciples may have preached was went the Twelve were sent out to proclaim the arrival of the Kingdom of God by their words and miracles (Luke 9:1-6) and then a bit later, 72 disciples (possibly some were married couples) were sent out in Luke 10:1-20, to do the same thing. The testimony of women was not accepted in that culture, so it is doubtful that women would have preached, but they may have worked miracles.

Up to this point, I have not attempted to show women preaching, nor do I believe that they did so.

Right. A woman was teaching a man, which Paul is alleged not to allow. Obviously, Paul's words are being misinterpreted by those who claim women must not teach men.

You are really downplaying those noble and courageous women. A disciple is one who reorders their life to learn from the example of Christ. They literally became nomads and literally followed Jesus to learn from Christ. They were not a "ladies auxiliary" there to do laundry and make sandwiches. They were more faithful than 11 of the Twelve in that they didn't run away when Jesus was arrested, were present during His crucifixion, and followed Nicodemus and Joseph Arimathea to see where the body of Jesus was laid. Without their witness to all of these events, and the resurrection (no men were immediate witnesses of these things), the question of whether or not Jesus was raised would have been brought into serious challenge.

And I haven't even mentioned the financial support... They were not just "followers."

Well it would have, but God has to work with the raw material He has. The ancient world wasn't ready to receive that, especially Judaism, so Jesus had to condescend to the level of what they could handle. His ministry was constantly elevating their view of the stranger, the other nations, the hated (Samaritans, Romans, tax collectors, sinners, etc.) and those thought to be outside of the work of God (women and children).

For that matter, God could have simply resolved the question of sin at the time of Abraham by giving Abraham the full revelation of Jesus and His death (in some fashion), but God had a purpose to create a people for Himself that would reveal His character and purpose, then place those people at the crossroads of the ancient world, confronting the most sophisticated religious system of the age (Judaism) and the greatest military/government power known up to that time (Rome), and then confound Rome and fulfill the promises to Israel in one Man.

Not really, unless you read it according to the presuppositions that a women should not teach (remember Priscilla/Prisca?) and/or someone who doesn't understand that this is an English translation (a poor one, IMO) from the Greek.

Since we know that Paul didn't have issues with women teaching (as mentioned previously, Priscilla/Prisca, and then the deacon named Phoebe, who carried the letter to the Roman churches -- see Romans 16:1-2 -- since the carriers of letters like this in the ancient world would read the letters to those assembled, giving the proper emphasis to key points, and then answering questions.), we know that this is not a blanket prohibition against a "woman" teaching. Even Timothy, the one to whom the letter is address, was taught the faith by his mother and grandmother (see 2 Timothy 1:5).

So what is Paul saying here? There are two key words - "Woman" and "usurp authority."

Let's look at the word translated "woman":
In Greek, it is γυναικὶ (gynaiki), which means "woman" or more usually, "wife", depending on the context. If we read this with the bias that women are not supposed to teach men, then we might easily translate it as "woman." But it could just easily, and more naturally, be translated "wife."

Let's look at the word translated "usurp authority":
In Greek, it is αὐθεντεῖν (authentein), which is only used here in the New Testament, but has the meaning of "to domineer, govern, have mastery over" -- to act as an autocrat or dictator. It literally means "self-appointed." To be blunt, no one - man nor woman - should act this way. It is completely opposed to the teaching of Jesus to be a servant instead of being like the Gentile leaders, dominating their subjects (Luke 22:24-27).

We know Timothy was probably serving as a pastor in Ephesus, where there was a huge cult of Artemis that worshipped at a magnificent temple. Goddess worship in Ephesian culture was the norm and women ruled the temple and kept men in their place. Given this context, let's look at a better translation of the passage, based on what I noted about the Greek words previously:

But I suffer not allow a wife to teach,
to act as an autocrat over her husband,
but to be in silence.
1 Timothy 2:12​

The prohibition that is placed on the wife is placed on her when she is trying to act as an autocrat over her husband - to put him in "his place."

This interpretation, ties in nicely with what Paul teaches in what is often used as a prooftext against women preaching:

...the [wives of the prophets] are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak (that is, critique or verify their husband's prophecy), but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything [about the prophecy], let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a [wife of a prophet] to speak [in critique or verification of the prophecy] in church.
1 Corinthians 14:34-35
​

Does that make sense?

 

Don't make me out to be the "bad guy" if I misinterpreted something you said please.

You said this at first:
"They play a role at Pentecost, speaking in tongues and preaching, and they were extremely involved in the organization and membership of the New Testament church."

Yes they played a "preaching" role at Pentecost but it is not that they were in a leadership hierarchy then or in the church following or that they studied long hours preparing sermons. They were given the good news in tongues, other languages, as the Spirit spoke through them. It just seems to me you are trying to justify that women can hold positions of authority over men in the church today with God's blessing. Did I get that wrong?

Yes women were in the group of disciples that followed Jesus while He walked the earth. Yes they did things that men could or would not such as Mary breaking the jar of perfume over Jesus' body at the dinner and the vigil over his tomb after the crucifixion. And the bringing the news of His resurrection to the hiding men disciples. And yes, there is an example of women as teachers, like Philip's daughters as prophetesses (Acts 21:9) but they are exceptions to the rule.

This quote:

"This interpretation, ties in nicely with what Paul teaches in what is often used as a prooftext against women preaching:

...the [wives of the prophets]"

Is referring to a text from the bible, 1 Timothy 2:12, except "wives of the prophets". I don't know where that came from. You do not need to say "the Greek says" unless you possess the original autographs and that is another discussion... just use English.

The text says,
"I suffer not a woman to teach or usurp authority over the man."

That is two things: teach or usurp authority over the man.

If you want to make a case for women preachers today because Paul was a misogynist or that the Lord has now rescinded that command (progressive revelation) be my guest.

 

I'm not making you out to be a bad guy since I don't think you are.

You are asking good questions, although you seem to misunderstand the point of what I am trying to explain. That is possibly more my fault than yours.

Let's look at your concerns:

Yes, and it seems that you agree with this part. Let me know if you don't.

I'm not sure if you realize it, but you have moved from one issue to another. The original issue was whether or not women were "preachers," not whether or not they were in a leadership hierarchy." There's a big difference between being in a "leadership hierarchy" and being a preacher, both inside and outside the church. Too often we confuse teaching and preaching with an inherent hierarchical authority in Christendom. Remember, the crowds were amazed by Jesus preaching "with authority" (Matthew 7:29), because it was clear He was speaking from intimate knowledge of God AND His actions matched His words. That's the only kind of real authority a preacher has. Churches may invest persons who preach with hierarchical authority, but that should be different from preaching or teaching authority. If a preacher does not live his/her message and does not have evidence of intimacy with God, then a listener should be extremely skeptical of the preacher's message.

This is irrelevant. I doubt Peter spent long hours preparing the sermon at Pentecost. It simply spilled out of him because he had been meditating on this for days, and the Spirit ordered his mind and gave him the appropriate words for the moment (that's what happens with prophecy). There is nothing wrong with long hours of study, and preparing manuscripts or outlines, but sermons come from the overflow of the spiritual life of the preacher. If it doesn't, there's no reason to expect the power of the Spirit to use it.

Yes, absolutely.

I have never even thought of trying to make that assertion in this conversation thread. For me, this has always been about women preaching. Regarding authority, in New Testament church terms, I see authority in two ways. The first, I briefly explained before... Teachers and preachers get their authority from intimacy with God and a life lived in the Spirit. No one has to tell the listener that the teacher/preacher has authority, it is evident. The second biblical position of authority comes being at the BOTTOM of a triangle, with the leader being the greatest servant (just like Jesus). The person who serves others in the church, including serving the other servants, is the authority in the church. We are not to be like the pagan leaders who "exercise authority" over each other, but to be servants of all. So, can women be servants? Just about everyone thinks so. I had a theology professor years ago tell us in a class that the secret for starting well at a church as "the pastor" is to figure out who the real pastors of the church really are -- the people to whom the congregation looks toward because they are selfless servants. With the average length of a pastorate being about 20 months, the real pastor(s) have been there for years and have been the person(s) on consistency. If "the pastor" will become servant to the real pastors, they will have all the authority they need in the congregation and will rarely, if ever, need to "pull rank." To be blunt, our congregation has a male "senior pastor" with the real pastors of the congregation being mostly women. One of the women happens to be on the professional staff, but she has served longer than anyone else on the leadership team. She is the one people go to for assistance with helping families in grief (inside and outside the church) because she is very gifted with compassion and has lots of practical wisdom and spiritual depth to help people in crisis. She claims to be terrible at evangelism (making the rational arguments we often believe constitutes "soul winning"), but dozens of people who have never previously been involved in church life have come to faith and joined our church. She never claims any hierarchical authority and would be horrified if asked to do so, but I jump to respond to her or do what she requests because of her God-given authority.

But is there "a rule" to begin with? I think there is custom, but not a rule.

Go back and look what I wrote. I pulled the other proof-text usually used against women preaching from 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 to demonstrate how the use of "wife" instead of "woman" is internally consistent and resolves both proof texts against the clear examples from Paul's writing. And the context of 1 Corinthians 14 is about the management of prophetic/preaching activity in the midst of the congregation, with guidance either on any "woman" passing judgment on the prophecy/sermon given, or "the wives" of the prophets passing judgment on their husband's prophecy/sermon. Since women prophesied in the congregation (look a few chapters earlier at 1 Corinthians 11:5), we know it can't be a blanket prohibition against women speaking in church, unless we think Paul is being wildly inconsistent in the same letter.

Few, if any, English translations handle this passage well. There are times the English translation obscures the meaning instead of revealing it. If you don't believe me, check with another person who knows Greek, or use the online tools. I have specifically and intentionally given you the Greek words, in Greek script, as well as the transliteration in English. You can take either of those terms and search for them in Google. The searches will give you the etymology and various meanings so you can see what I claim.

Yes. I've already covered these issues. You can go back and look at my previous posts. But in short, a better translation would be 'I do not allow a wife to be a domineering, self-appointed teacher over her husband.'

I have never made those claims since I don't believe that. Please do not inject that nonsense into this discussion.

 

OK Salty sorry. I got carried away.

 

I found intriguing the last sentence (boldfaced) of this paragraph in his Wikipedia article:

With the outbreak of the Quasi-War with France, Talbot was re-commissioned as a captain in the United States Navy on May 11, 1798. He served as commander of USS Constitution from June 5, 1799 until September 8, 1801, sailing it to the West Indies where he protected American commerce from French privateers during the Quasi-War. He commanded the Santo Domingo Station in 1799 and 1800 and was commended by the Secretary of the Navy for protecting American commerce and for laying the foundation of a permanent trade with that country. It is said that Talbot was wounded 13 times and carried 5 bullets in his body.[3]​