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.
He did a lot more than that regarding women vs. the social/religious customs.
The Luke 8 passage says the women contributed support, not that they preached.
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.)
The Luke 10 passage says the women listened at Jesus' feet, not that they preached or prophesied.
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.
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
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.
"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.
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."
Really violated (using your term) the gender norm would be having a woman as one of the 12.
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.
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
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?