[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

I give. You won't be honest enough to say you are flying by the seat of your pants on your limited knowledge of hermeneutics and the more you respond the more ignorant you sound.

Let's see: You're vaguely familiar w/ Daniel Wallace, claim that apologetics "have nothing to do" w/ a polemical disscussion, enquire about logical fallacies....then claim that "I" have limited hermeneutic comprehension???? I see, you've apparently "arrived"?? Apparently NOT. Next.....

Context is doctrinal? I about spit my water out of my nose. Context is neutral, it is the framework behind the so-called "literal text" and it gives the text meaning.

And my eyes got as wide a saucers when I read this. "Context is neutral"??? You apparently don't understand context. Context is the overall subject matter that the writer is dealing w/....which you claim is "neutral"?? Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeew! I suppose Paul's teachings on faith were then "neutral"?? Man, this just gets worse & worse! Next.....

A word changes according to its context. It also helps us understand authorial intent. You are awkwardly pitting exegetical context against literary, syntactical context. I have no idea why.

NOt at all, for about the 6th time now, I'll say again that context most certainly plays a part in exegesis. In fact, I'd say that context is one of the primary interpretation rules. But, I've said this for about 6 times now, so I'm sure you'll simply ignore this also???

Trinitarian? Calvnist? Non-Christian Spirit? (Have you read a thing you've said to others on here. Not exactly God come in humble flesh material).

Oh brother, so you obviously are reluctant to affirm your doctrinal posture...next.....

I think I've engaged you more than most on here. We took a tangent because when cocky people start spouting out things (especially posers), it's cynically fun to exploit that. You, my dear "Watson," have been exploited

Tks. for the smile this morning. This coming from someone who isn't even "terribly familiar" w/ possibly the greatest Greek scholar/textual critic of our day, has not even read Hartill's infamous book on Hermeneutics, derides logical fallacies that he makes repeatedly...then says "You've been exposed as a poser"??? Yea' man....next......

To the subject at hand - the question is to wonder if Paul was reinforcing an already-existent universal prohibition against women teachers, creating a new one, or determine what situation he was responding to (the complex nature of epistles).

Now we're getting somewhere. As I've pointed out, the epistle was addressing church order, as it plainly says. And it's from this perspective that Paul commands, "I do not allow a woman to teach, or to excercise authority over a man." He then appeals to the creation model to butress his doctrine.

Honestly here, who would simply allow this text [& I Cor. 14:34] to speak for itself & conclude that God calls women into His authoritative 5-fold ministry? This is precisely the thing that he was forbidding.