Can Women Pastor ?

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Well, I'm not so sure it's "so clear" with regard to "gold, costly array" etc.

That's the problem It takes examination of context. What was the problem he is addressing? Then step back, and look at the big picture -- what is Paul's message? Get further like that, rather than staring a centimeter away from the page.

Ughhhh, say what??????????? Now orthodoxy is hinged upon one's proximity to the pages of the Bible?????????? Yea', real "exegesis"!?!?!?

Besides, it's hilarious how you appeal to context repeatedly in order to render the plainness of the Bible ineffective & non-applicable to your lifestyle. Ever heard of "Accommodationism"???

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Can you interact ONE TIME with evidence? talk about it?

Do you just copy/paste this little statement in reply to everyone?

You're like talking to a brick wall. Your poor kids!

Amazing how you can post sooooooooo much "substance," then rebuke me for "little statements"????? See thyself!

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

Ughhhh, say what??????????? Now orthodoxy is hinged upon one's proximity to the pages of the Bible?????????? Yea', real "exegesis"!?!?!?

Besides, it's hilarious how you appeal to context repeatedly in order to render the plainness of the Bible ineffective & non-applicable to your lifestyle. Ever heard of "Accommodationism"???

Your first paragraph. I have no idea what you are talking about. Surely you didn't take a metaphor and make it something literal. Myopic translation = translating a text without stepping back and learning the primary message.

I've not rendered the "plainness of the Bible ineffective and non-applicable." That's a false accusation. I will say, things are as "plain" as you may think. What you are saying has major implications for women like the Alvears, and heck -- half the pioneers of Pentecost for that matter. I think it deserves some scrutiny and not just "it's so plain, what's wrong with you imbeciles" rhetoric. Wouldn't you agree?

So quit building straw men and get back on topic.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

Amazing how you can post sooooooooo much "substance," then rebuke me for "little statements"????? See thyself!

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Your first paragraph. I have no idea what you are talking about. Surely you didn't take a metaphor and make it something literal. Myopic translation = translating a text without stepping back and learning the primary message.

I've not rendered the "plainness of the Bible ineffective and non-applicable." That's a false accusation. I will say, things are as "plain" as you may think. What you are saying has major implications for women like the Alvears, and heck -- half the pioneers of Pentecost for that matter. I think it deserves some scrutiny and not just "it's so plain, what's wrong with you imbeciles" rhetoric. Wouldn't you agree?

So quit building straw men and get back on topic.

Never left the ring, just responding to your diversions.

Now, let me respond to Prax, I'm pressed for time this evening.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Being a Pastor is not the same as "exercising authority over".

Are you asserting here that the God-ordained ministry is not in a postion of authority in the church?

You have to consider these verses in the context they are in.

Yes, & the context was church order. "These things I write to you so that you may know how to behave yourself in the household of God, which is the church....."

Is this speaking of being a pastor? Then why not say "I do not allow a woman to pastor". But specifically this is a woman not having authority over a man, not over men and women in the church,

You're speculating into the text, which does not state what you state here. It's an argument from silence Prax. You know better than that.

He begins with "But". That tells you this statement is related to a statement just made.

Which translation are you appealing to? And how does this change the plainess of the text?

1Ti 2:11 A woman must learn quietly with all submissiveness.

Who in the world would just read that & conclude from the text alone that God "calls women preachers" in the church?? No one who simply allows the text to speak for itself.

What is significant of this is previously Jewish women were not allowed to go to synagogue and learn, only men were. So Paul is introducing a radical change in cultural thinking

Prax, Paul's writings were to the NT churches, not the inter-testamental Jews. So synagogues have nothing to do w/ this text, & the text never even mentions a synagogue. You're speculating INTO the text [eisegesis].

Then Paul says "I permit"...this is peculiar because he is speaking as Paul. Notice in this place where Paul distinguishes between what he teaches and what is the Lord's teaching? 1Co 7:10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:

"If any man among you thinks himself to be spiritual or a prophet, let him acknowledge that the things that I write to you are the commandments of the Lord." When Paul was speaking on his own accord he explicitly states so, which he does not do here.

But what is Paul permitting or not permitting here?

From the NET bible commentary
According to BDAG 150 s.αὐθεντέω this Greek verb means "to assume a stance of independent authority, give orders to, dictate to" (cf. JB "tell a man what to do").

So Paul is saying a woman should never assume a stance of independent authority, give orders or dictate to.

So the taught Word of God is not instructional? Besides, a commentary is not a lexicon, & I can quote several commentaries that strongly disagree. So, back to the text.

So presumably if that is someone's idea of what a Pastor is then yes she can't be a pastor....if that is really what a pastor is...a dictator

The nouns used here for women and men can be translated wife and husband too.

And not one single reputable translation adopts this rendering. Hmmmm. The terms primarily mean simply man & woman, just as translated.

From what I understand in the synagogues only the men went and learned...in quite subjection. Paul broke this cultural norm and allowed women to learn too in quite subjection. In the synagogues the men would then come home to their wives and teach them.

Where is all of this theology stated in the actual text:___________?

So this doesn't seem to be addressing pastoring unless one believes pastoring is to give orders.

"Obey them that have the R-U-L-E OVER you. and submit yourselves......" Sounds authoritative to me. Besides, the term for "Elders" is ALWAYS in the Masculine...NEVER in the feminine!

More to say, I'm sure, but have some errands that I absolutely HAVE to take care of this evening [in about 30 min.]. Try to look in a little later. Blessings.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Your first paragraph. I have no idea what you are talking about. Surely you didn't take a metaphor and make it something literal. Myopic translation = translating a text without stepping back and learning the primary message.

I've not rendered the "plainness of the Bible ineffective and non-applicable." That's a false accusation. I will say, things are as "plain" as you may think. What you are saying has major implications for women like the Alvears, and heck -- half the pioneers of Pentecost for that matter. I think it deserves some scrutiny and not just "it's so plain, what's wrong with you imbeciles" rhetoric. Wouldn't you agree?

So quit building straw men and get back on topic.

Hey Jeffrey, have you never heard of the golden rule of interpretation? Take the text as literal as possible, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise [such as the woman standing on the moon, clothed in the sun in Rev.]. Therefore, take every word/passage at it's literal face value, unless clearly shown otherwise. This is where the epistles, which are instructional in nature, serve our epistemological make-up quite well.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

It was ignorant. You can judge if that's Christian or not.

If a scholar said that (name him), he just lost scholarly points. To say there is any consensus among New Testament scholars on this subject is naive at best.

I see, so you're the judge sitting on a solitary panel who dictates who "loses scholarly points" or not.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

Hey Jeffrey, have you never heard of the golden rule of interpretation? Take the text as literal as possible, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise [such as the woman standing on the moon, clothed in the sun in Rev.]. Therefore, take every word/passage at it's literal face value, unless clearly shown otherwise. This is where the epistles, which are instructional in nature, serve our epistemological make-up quite well.

Never heard of that "golden rule." Another one you just made up?

It's not about it being literal or figurative (literary genre/mechanics), it's understanding the overall message in general, and keeping that in mind when straining your eyes at the gnats. Don't lose the forest for the trees. Heard that one before, right?

Our epistemological make-up... I like you, RDP.