Originally Posted by Jeffrey (Post 859602)

And I'm juuuuuuuuust as shocked! Tell me Jeffrey, what does history have to do w/ literal word definitons, or Greek syntax for example????? Not saying at all that culture plays a part in the text, but I'm speaking strict exegesis of the actual text, not loose exegesis. Culture will not judge us in eternity, but His Word will. Perhaps YOU need to do a little more scholarly work

I respected you as a scholar for the anti-women pastor position. I've just lost some respect for you. Greek syntax is only one part of the process of exegeting from the Text. One part. It's multi-dimensional. The meaning of the text goes through several layers of tests and responds to many questions of the exegete. Strict and loose? What are you even talking about? There's no such thing. You are hijacking terms of scholars, but you're an empty suit at this point. Nothing you've said above shows you know anything about hermeneutics. What is your experience in learning hermeneutics?

Not looking for the respect of men. You're reading something into my statement not intended. I even said above that that culture & history play a part, but really have nothing to do w/ actual word definitions & syntax. Moreover, in a practical sense, church records from the 1st century are so scanty [outside of the canon] that it's very hard to state anything in concrete terms regarding eclessiology. Thus, history/culture are not to be used as interprative lenses to the literal text. Apparently you deny this. I'd say, you're the one who needs to quit "posing" around here!

You have raised good points to consider in the argument. I'm just sad on this particular aspect, you are really just parroting points (which is okay to be honest) but posing as a scholar in the process.

Originally Posted by Trouvere (Post 859609)

To Sister Alvear
I just want you to know that many in ministry greatly respect and love you.
I told Brother Holmes all the good things you said about his church. He really does love you and your family. Thanks for the kindness you have shown our family. We had a great time there and were treated like royalty. Brother Holmes even invited us to his table for dinner so before we hit the highway again we were treated to Chinese food. He also loaded us up with books and cd's. Thanks again.

Please read this:

11Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

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

13For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

14And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

15Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.


We don't need to flinch at these passages nor do we have to apply custom to them.
This is speaking of the husband and wife relationship clearly.
The word should be correctly translated from the greek wife not woman
and husband not man. A wife is not to usurp authority over her husband. She is not to teach him though they may share things and he may be open to her bible understanding. He is clearly the leader in the home. It is a very nice thing to have a home in biblical order.
Going back to the Adam and Eve relationship is the clue here is the clue.
Adam and Eve were the first couple. Then the word goes on to speak of childbearing. Women are not saved from sin by childbearing. They are promised a promise if they stay in the Biblical order of creation and has faith and love and holiness in her life. Lets be fair about the passage.

Originally Posted by Sister Alvear (Post 859614)

The Greek, the word “propheteuo” means “to proclaim God’s message,” “to preach,” and “to speak God’s message intelligibly”

Originally Posted by rdp (Post 859615)

Whatever you say..........................

Originally Posted by Jeffrey (Post 859608)

I'm saying that's not a hermeneutical principle as you suggested. You're making things up.

You very obviously need to do some homework. Besides, does one have to quote someone else for something to be true?? Or, can we simply observe things in the Biblical record [though I have read this before]???

It's not implicit vs. explicit in exegeting the Text. That's not even the question (and it doesn't matter if you use 100 question marks). The texts are against each other in some great wrestling match. Some things that are explicit need to be understood what they are explicitly regarding.

Never said any of this. Go back & re-read & get back to me.

Someone like you surely believes in implicit over explicit. How else do you explain that someone must speak in tongues to be saved :)

Originally Posted by Jeffrey (Post 859619)

Not looking for the respect of men. You're reading something into my statement not intended. I even said above that that culture & history play a part, but really have nothing to do w/ actual word definitions & syntax. Moreover, in a practical sense, church records from the 1st century are so scanty [outside of the canon] that it's very hard to state anything in concrete terms regarding eclessiology. Thus, history/culture are not to be used as interprative lenses to the literal text. Apparently you deny this. I'd say, you're the one who needs to quit "posing" around here!
:ursofunny

What am I reading into it? Re-read your comments. Now your back-pedaling. You said exegeting. That's not exclusive to language and syntax, nor is that the lone tool used to exegete the texts on women pastors. Why would you even suggest that?

Oh brother. If you think I'm gonna' allow you to put me in a corner & play defense all the time, think again. Been at it tooooooo many years to fall for that ol' apologetical trick. Do you deny that word definitions & syntax are the PRIMARY factors in exegesis? Or, do you put culture/history right alongside Scripture???

And the bolded part, you just lost your badge as adjunct AFF scholar. No posing here. I'll ask again: what's your training in hermeneutics? You are being called on the carpet. Just admit your throwing words out that you don't understand. Your argument is still a good one without the posing.

Originally Posted by Jeffrey (Post 859597)

Even the Pharisees were appalled at Jesus for breaking the literal law by healing on the Sabbath :)

Just food for thought. We have a job to do. And a job in a 21st Century where attitudes toward women are much different. Even the most conservative of families still recognize the leadership of a man-led home, but there is a respect for a human being that is moved on by the Spirit to minister to others, which includes teaching. It doesn't rub anyone the wrong way today, except those still clinging to the letter of the law, and missing the whole spirit of it. That said, I think the jury is still out on what Paul was correcting: a universal prohibition of women teaching/preaching, or a unique situation where women were usurping authority within the church?