Can Women Pastor ?

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

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.

Honestly, Jeffrey, you reveal that you're not the student you propose to be when you deride subjects as elementary as epistemology & the golden rule of interpretation [i.e., Literal Hermeneutics].

Moreover, you cannot "understand the overall message until you discern the writer's intent. Is he speaking metaphorically or literally, for example. You really crack me up how you constantly accuse me of "making things up" when you don't recognize a phrase, term, etc. Anyway, does something have to be quoted from another source to be applicable??? Plumb ridiculous!

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

It's not really quite that deep. There's no panel. No literal points (you have trouble keeping metaphors for what they're worth)

Scholar A says to RDP "Most who believe x are unscholarly."
Meanwhile, someone needs to send a memo to the scores of other NT Scholars that don't believe x. Therefore, Scholar A is talking about of his gluteus maximus (another metaphor).

Not hardly, as you & the others demonstrate repeatedly!!!

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

"Obey them that have the R-U-L-E OVER you. and submit yourselves......" Sounds authoritative to me.

Heb 13:17 Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.

Besides, the term for "Elders" is ALWAYS in the Masculine...NEVER in the feminine!

Are all Elders pastors? Are all Pastors Elders?

Well, you posted in such a way that I can't respond to each point as I'd like. But it seems that you're basing much of your argument above on the supposed culture of the day. This is an unprovable appeal outside of the text, not inherent to the actual text itself.

And, you've given one definition of arguing from silence. My point is, you're arguing from an unscriptural posture [i.e., "silence"]. Where does the text itself ONCE refer to "synagogues":___________? If it's not in the text, then where did you get this Prax? Not to mention that you did not directly answer some of my questions above, but just side-stepped them.

I Cor. 11 says that a woman long, unshorn hair is given for ["anti"] a veil. Not sure how this relates to the subject of women preachers in the church [which IS the overriding theme of our discussion, by the way]. And, I still don't see how Bauer's affects the meaning anyway. The application is the same.

But, let's take a look at some corroborative evidence: We have clear Scripture forbidding women from positions of authority over men, from teaching/preaching [which are used synonymously in the Bible, much like "God" & "Father"] in the church, absolutely NO examples of the practice ANYWHERE in the entire Bible, the term for elders is ALWAYS in the masculine, NEVER in the feminine, etc. ad nauseum.

Seriously, where's the Scriptural evidence in favor of women preachers in the church:____________?

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Well done, Prax.

Also, this obsession with word genders is not a 100% reliable way of knowing if he's referring to men or women, or only men. Often times a masculine word can include BOTH. It's a good thing to look at, but more should be examined before concluding a masculine word always refers to men. It's language.

Jeffrey, you reveal your bias via your quick agreement w/ Prax w/out serious examination.

He's not explaining the text of I Tim. 2:12-15 at all...other than "synagogues," which are NOT even hinted at in these verse???? And you jump up & down saying "well done"??????????????????????????????

Sheesh, is this all it takes to explain away Scripture for you??

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Sister Alvear

Wise men like King David will recognize the “Abigails”. The “Baraks” will gladly follow the “Deborahs”. Kings and priests will learn from the “Huldahs”. The “Simons” will rejoice as the “Annas” do prophesy. Even the “Mordicahs” will remind the “Esthers” that life alone depends on their brave interceding.

How does any of this invalidate the very plain language used in I Tim. 2:11-15, or I Cor. 14:34???

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Sister Alvear

I am painfully aware that religious activities in Greco-Roman paganism included cult prostitution and shriek cries described as wild outcries. The Corinthian female dominated religious thought and practice. From the mother goddess Artemis to the women serving their time as sacred temple prostitutes and speaking messages from the gods, the male of Corinth was deeply dependent upon the female. Yet this has nothing to do with the gospel of Jesus Christ but sadly it has influenced the thinking of many people. Yet men like John of Chrysostom (who was no champion of women) called Priscilla a “teacher of teachers.”
So who are we to judge what God has spoken to someone else? Who are we to say what they feel deep in their hearts.
So many times in my life it would have been easier for the moment to deny the calling of God and be on the popular bandwagon but I fear God to much for that. For he has no time to waste on people who will not be true to their calling. I think of something I read in Foxes book of Martyrs about The First Persecution, Under Nero, A.D. 67.
This persecution was general throughout the whole Roman Empire; but it rather increased than diminished the spirit of Christianity. Another part says ,
"a noble army, men and boys, the matron and the maid," "climbed the steep ascent of heaven, 'mid peril, toil, and pain."

Rest assured there were many women preachers that died for the gospel....


Five of our adopted children their sweet preacher mother died for the gospel...a modern day martyr...

How does any of this invalidate I Tim. 2:11-15?

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Sister Alvear

I have felt the call of God on my life since a small child. It grieves me to see people waste precious time debating other people’s call. I have never tried to defend my call for what human can explain the divine?
It is only a desire in my heart to see every soul saved and every mouthpiece possible used to that end. Our endless shopping sprees would suddenly come to a halt if we could really realize the fate of the lost. Vacations would not have the same flavor if we could look on eternity through the eyes of him who uttered, “Look upon the fields, they are white unto harvest.” If calvary were to become as real to us as we say it is our little ego trips of who spreads the message would fade into obscurity as we look upon an agonizing Savior pointing us to go to the ends of the world proclaiming this life giving message. As the old song reminds us, if Calvary could talk it would tell us to go tell the lost.

HOW MANY TIMES have I shown that I Tim. 2 is contextually dealing w/ church order, not soul-winning [which everyone should do]???????? Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh! Are you not reading my posts??????????

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Correct, church is feminine but surely the church is made up of both sexes

Then just do away w/ the masculine "Heis" in Gal. 3:20 eh' Prax? Be consistent. Of course the term "bride" is depicted as feminine!?!?!?

Are you denying what I Tim. 2:11-15 plainly says to the church?

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

Honestly, Jeffrey, you reveal that you're not the student you propose to be when you deride subjects as elementary as epistemology & the golden rule of interpretation [i.e., Literal Hermeneutics].

Moreover, you cannot "understand the overall message until you discern the writer's intent. Is he speaking metaphorically or literally, for example. You really crack me up how you constantly accuse me of "making things up" when you don't recognize a phrase, term, etc. Anyway, does something have to be quoted from another source to be applicable??? Plumb ridiculous!

You've made things up before, that's why.

The "Golden Rule of Interpretation" has other names, depending on the field of Hermeneutics you study (yes, there are many)! It's an approach not skipped by other fields to (those who suggest first learning authorial intent for example).

The plain, literal meaning works great. Read on in your instruction manual for passages that seem "obscure" or that are "controversial." To give you a heads up, the "Golden Rule" is used to discern whether the passage is figurative or not! That's the case with the passages you are presenting. We know Paul is not waxing poetic.

The "plain" and "literal" is defined by the context of what Paul's addressing, by Paul's time and day, by the situation unique to the churches -- these all help inform us what the "plain and literal" mean.

Your Golden Rule is an instrument for determining literary genre, not overall interpretation. Try again.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

Then just do away w/ the masculine "Heis" in Gal. 3:20 eh' Prax? Be consistent. Of course the term "bride" is depicted as feminine!?!?!?

Are you denying what I Tim. 2:11-15 plainly says to the church?

Well, actually, by "consistency" I hope you don't mean if the gender means one thing in one passage it means the same thing in all passages? Please tell me you don't mean that.