Is ordination of women to be Pastors [Overseer/Bishop] orthodox?

[Paprika]

You don't understand what the term messenger meant at that time. That role was specific to the first Christians. Those who started ministries. It is the reason why it's one of the terms used for apostle. Again, we are dealing with semantics.

Definitions are essential to rigorous argument. Avoiding 'semantics' in scenarios where disputed meanings are highly relevant show that you have no intention of constructive engagement.

I am not surprised.

Then please do explain what the significance of Junia being in Christ to her supposed leadership.

Those that were mentioned by Paul where both.

Do demonstrate that if you are able to do so.

I know the point you were making.

But you ignore it.

[Jesse]

Definitions are essential to rigorous argument. Avoiding 'semantics' in scenarios where disputed meanings are highly relevant show that you have no intention of constructive engagement.

No. You are looking for a strict definition/separation where one doesn't exist. Apostle/Messenger is not a disputed meaning. Maybe for you it is.

Then please do explain what the significance of Junia being in Christ to her supposed leadership.

Junia and Andronicus where both in Christ before Paul. Paul states this for a reason. It's to show their commitment and status within the early body. That they were one of the originals and where in jail with him for spreading the gospel is key. They were in leadership roles.

Do demonstrate that if you are able to do so.

Barnabas, Apollos, Timothy, Silas, Peter, Et al. This includes Junia, Andronicus, Phoebe. Those that Paul mentions specifically by name have leadership roles within the church. Paul pointing them out shows their status.

But you ignore it.

If you want to think that.

[Paprika]

No. You are looking for a strict definition/separation where one doesn't exist. Apostle/Messenger is not a disputed meaning. Maybe for you it is.

'Messenger' does not equal 'leader'.

Junia and Andronicus where both in Christ before Paul. Paul states this for a reason. It's to show their commitment and status within the early body. That they were one of the originals and where in jail with him for spreading the gospel is key. They were in leadership roles.

The last statement does not follow.

This includes Junia, Andronicus, Phoebe. Those that Paul mentions specifically by name have leadership roles within the church.

You're merely begging the question here.

[Jesse]

I am going to keep hammering this home. Craig S. Keener:

Source: http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/200102/082_paul.cfm

Paul commended the ministry of a woman who brought his letter to the Roman Christians (Romans 16:1,2). Phoebe was a servant of the church at Cenchrea. "Servant" may refer to a deacon, a term that sometimes designated administrative responsibility in the Early Church. In his epistles, however, Paul most frequently applied the term to any minister of God’s Word, including himself (1 Corinthians 3:5; 2 Corinthians 3:6; 6:4; Ephesians 3:7; 6:21). He also called Phoebe a "succorer" or "helper" of many (Romans 16:2); this term technically designated her as the church’s patron or sponsor, most likely the owner of the home in which the church at Cenchrea was meeting. This entitled her to a position of honor in the church.9

Phoebe was not the only influential woman in the church. Whereas Paul greeted about twice as many men as women in Romans 16, he commended the ministries of about twice as many women as men in that list. (Some use the predominance of male ministers in the Bible against women in ministry, but that argument could work against men’s ministry in this passage.) These commendations may indicate his sensitivity to the opposition women undoubtedly faced for their ministry and are remarkable, given the prejudice against women’s ministry that existed in Paul’s culture.

If Paul followed ancient custom when he praised Priscilla, he may have mentioned her before her husband Aquila because of her higher status (Romans 16:3,4). Elsewhere we learn that she and her husband taught Scripture to another minister, Apollos (Acts 18:26). Paul also listed two fellow apostles, Andronicus and Junia (Romans 16:7). Although Junia is clearly a feminine name, writers opposed to the possibility that Paul could have referred to a female apostle,10 suggest that Junia is a contraction for the masculine Junianus. This contraction, however, never occurs, and more recently has been shown to be grammatically impossible for a Latin name like Junia. This suggestion rests not on the text itself, but entirely on the presupposition that a woman could not be an apostle.

Elsewhere Paul referred to the ministry of two women in Philippi, who, like his many male fellow ministers, shared in his work for the gospel there (Philippians 4:2,3). Because women typically achieved more prominent religious roles in Macedonia than in most parts of the Roman world,11 Paul’s women colleagues in this region may have moved more quickly into prominent offices in the church (cf., Acts 16:14,15).

Although Paul ranked prophets second only to apostles (1 Corinthians 12:28), he acknowledged the ministry of prophetesses (1 Corinthians 11:5), following the Hebrew Bible (Exodus 15:20; Judges 4:4; 2 Kings 22:13,14) and early Christian practice (Acts 2:17,18; 21:9). Thus those who complain that Paul did not specifically mention women pastors by name miss the point. Paul rarely mentioned any men pastors by name, either. He most often simply mentioned his traveling companions in ministry, who were naturally men. Paul’s most commonly used titles for these fellow laborers were "servant" and "fellow worker"–both of which he also applied to women (Romans 16:1,3). Given the culture he addressed, it was natural that fewer women could exercise the social independence necessary to achieve positions of ministry. Where they did, however, Paul commended them and included commendations to women apostles and prophets, the offices of the highest authority in the church.

© Copyright Original Source

You're merely begging the question here.

You go right ahead and keep stretching this as far as you like. The data has an overwhelming conclusion. You may not like it, but it's there. Paul's mentioning of these apostles specifically is significant. I would like to see a scholar that says otherwise.

[37818]

'Messenger' does not equal 'leader'.

The letters are addressed first to the seven "messengers" of those seven churches. (Revelation.)

[Cow Poke]

wow

[Cow Poke]

OK, NOT wanting to derail this thread --- lets ASSUME that the Bible does not prohibit or discourage women pastors or bishops ----- do you know of ANY churches led by women that are vibrant?

Please post responses to that question in THIS THREAD. Thanks. No DEBATE - just information, please.

[Teallaura]

One of the best small churches I knew of was lead by a female lay pastor (she was a candidate at the time I knew her.)

[Cow Poke]

One of the best small churches I knew of was lead by a female lay pastor (she was a candidate at the time I knew her.)

Please post responses to that question in THIS THREAD. Thanks. No DEBATE - just information, please.

[Paprika]

I am going to keep hammering this home. Craig S. Keener...

...proves nothing about whether women were leaders in that passage.

You go right ahead and keep stretching this as far as you like. The data has an overwhelming conclusion. You may not like it, but it's there. Paul's mentioning of these apostles specifically is significant. I would like to see a scholar that says otherwise.

When you can produce any substantive argument, then I will take your 'overwhelming conclusion' seriously.

[Paprika]

The letters are addressed first to the seven "messengers" of those seven churches. (Revelation.)

Could you please elaborate? I can't tell if you're agreeing, disagreeing, or making some other point.

[Jesse]

...proves nothing about whether women were leaders in that passage.

You missed the entire point of what I posted. Not surprising.

When you can produce any substantive argument, then I will take your 'overwhelming conclusion' seriously.

Considering that you can't be bothered to do any research, I doubt you take very little seriously.

[Paprika]

You missed the entire point of what I posted. Not surprising.

There was no point, merely an irrelevant quotation.

Considering that you can't be bothered to do any research

When you descend to such blatant misrepresentations your ineptitude becomes obvious. I suggest slinking off with as much dignity as possible.

[Jesse]

There was no point, merely an irrelevant quotation.

Which shows that you have the reading comprehension of a wet paper bag. And about as useful.

When you descend to such blatant misrepresentations your ineptitude becomes obvious. I suggest slinking off with as much dignity as possible.

Oh Paprika. All you had to do was say you are too ignorant to understand complex data. Then you could've ended it with some respect still intact.

[Paprika]

Which shows that you have the reading comprehension of a wet paper bag. And about as useful.

On the contrary: you quote sources uncritically which bear little relevance to the point being discussed.

Oh Paprika. All you had to do was say you are too ignorant to understand complex data. Then you could've ended it with some respect still intact.

Nonsense. Many sources you quote you do so without prior critical evaluation, making many points mere appeal to authorities, and often irrelevant ones at that. Then you whine and bluster when people point out this fact.