Can Women Pastor ?

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Prax's input on the word "permit" in the Text here sums up why it's not so blatant to me. Paul offers guidance to the churches many times in his Epistles that are addressing unique situations. Permitting, allowing do not have the universal impact as a commandment of the LORD would, which is other language he's used before.

Yes Jeffrey, but there are other definitions of "permit," but it seems like he's "overreading the read" [NO, I did not "make this up]. "All Scripture is given by INSPIRATION OF GOD, AND IS PROFITABLE FOR.....INSTRUCTIONS IN RIGHTEOUSNESS....."

Add in the history of women preaching, and their work at spreading Pentecostalism in the world today. Add in the many other women leaders in the Bible (OT and New) that have to be minimized and explained away.

What NT leaders Jeffrey? Pheobe simply carried a letter for Paul & he calls her a "helper"? I honestly don't see NT women leaders.

While "preaching and teaching" may be used together, they are also still very distinct in nature.

To some extent, but no, I would not say "very distinct".

Then there's the whole "straining the gnat" idea that maybe we get so caught up on the particulars, that we lose focus of the whole thing. God wants us to reach the world. Can it be done with women teaching under the authority of their husbands? I've seen great examples of this in places where it is done with decency, respect to custom and order.

These are just some of the reasons why I'm still very undecided.

I still don't see how one move around I Tim. & I Cor. 14, but I at least understand your reasonings.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

Ho-Hum, how many times do I have to show that records of the 1st century are so extremely scanty that it's very difficuly to assert anything relieably in a historical sense......for about the 4th time now!

I'm not a child, nor a woman (as you may be inclined to speak to them). You're petulence is not convincing, only distracting.

Scanty? What's your email? I will email you several good writings that are full of information concerning the First Century (since more has been discovered in the last 100 years than ever before). Maybe that will help you.

You have a wonderful way of dismissing any evidence. Your argument loses credibility when you're unwilling to handle other's evidence and claims. Dismissing them with cutesy sayings like 'Ho Hum' doesn't help.

[Jeffrey]

Yes Jeffrey, but there are other definitions of "permit," but it seems like he's "overreading the read" [NO, I did not "make this up]. "All Scripture is given by INSPIRATION OF GOD, AND IS PROFITABLE FOR.....INSTRUCTIONS IN RIGHTEOUSNESS....."

First of all, the above quoted Scripture is referring to the OT. That was the author's intent, was it not?

Second of all, I don't see his attempt as an "over reading," but rather an attempt to understand first and foremost the author's meaning, which takes going back to the author's setting.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

RDP, who in the NT "expounded from the Scriptures" regularly at gatherings? Where do you get that from? The first 30-60 years of Christianity was without copied "scripture" in fact. Eventually, some of the communities read Paul's writings.

Paul expounded from the OT Scriptures, who wrote 2/3 of the NT, see the last few verses of Acts. Besides, isn't that what we do today in teaching the Church?

The delineation of Elders, Deacons, Bishops and elders did not even have specified functions until the 2nd Century, when a church hierarchy was formed. Earlier mentions of "elders" and "overseers" were informal leadership roles, not quite developed until the 2nd Century. The Didache gives us some good background on this.

The Didache is a highly debateable document, as you surely know. Besides, I'm appealling to Scripture, not history.

Here's your favorite comment of mine...."Gotta' go!" Try to look in later.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

First of all, the above quoted Scripture is referring to the OT. That was the author's intent, was it not?

Second of all, I don't see his attempt as an "over reading," but rather an attempt to understand first and foremost the author's meaning, which takes going back to the author's setting.

No problem w/ going back to the writer's intent, but how much plainer can his intent be than, "I do not allow....."?

Try to look in later, gotta' go for now!

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

I'm not a child, nor a woman (as you may be inclined to speak to them). You're petulence is not convincing, only distracting.

Scanty? What's your email? I will email you several good writings that are full of information concerning the First Century (since more has been discovered in the last 100 years than ever before). Maybe that will help you.

You have a wonderful way of dismissing any evidence. Your argument loses credibility when you're unwilling to handle other's evidence and claims. Dismissing them with cutesy sayings like 'Ho Hum' doesn't help.

Point taken, but you've been pretty rough yourself by using terms such as "stupid" & "ignorant".....then you wanna' school me on proper responses???

Evidence is found in the pages of the Bible, not spurious documents!

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

The Didache is a highly debateable document, as you surely know. Besides, I'm appealling to Scripture, not history.

Here's your favorite comment of mine...."Gotta' go!" Try to look in later.

Well actually it was controversial with adding it to the canon (which it at first was added -- RCC still has it added to its collection of Apostolic Fathers.

"Appealing to scripture, not history" is what pains me the most. Historical context frames enlightens us as to what was going on when the Text was written, and therefore helping us to further understand the author's intent, purpose and meaning. For the life of me, I don't understand how you throw out historical evidence and claim to be the "champion of scripture." This is why I pester you about your so-called "Hermeneutic" claims.

[Jeffrey]

Paul expounded from the OT Scriptures, who wrote 2/3 of the NT, see the last few verses of Acts. Besides, isn't that what we do today in teaching the Church?

There wasn't a finalized OT canon or Scripture at the time. Certain scrolls of books may have been available, but likely not. Much of the OT quotes from NT passages are out of oral tradition.

Your second statement -- what we do today in Church is irrelevant to understanding the author's meaning, and what they did then in church. Since you've used the word "eisegesis" so many times in this thread, I'll go ahead and give the word correct application: what we do today does not read into the Text of what they did then.

[Sister Alvear]

How could anyone alive today without history know what was going on...
lol...why even study history if you cannot use it...lol...

[Sister Alvear]

“The Meaning of ‘Authenteo’”
If the religious environment surrounding 1 Timothy 2 is important, so is the language. ‘Authenteo,’ translated ‘to usurp authority’ in the King James Version, is a Greek verb so rare that it appears nowhere else in the entire New Testament. The concept of ruling or exercising authority over another occurs frequently in the New Testament, but always with other words. The French etymologist Pierre Chantraine suggested that ‘authentes,’ the noun from which the verb ‘authenteo’ is derived, had essentially the significance of the person beginning or being responsible (aitios) for an action, situation, or state. From this stemmed two other basic meanings, namely, to be in charge or rule over something and to be ultimately responsible for a terrible crime, usually murder. In this way, Chantraine resolved an etymological problem that had perplexed scholars since late antiquity. How could the same word denote both murderer and ruler? In the earliest usages, the concept of murder was almost always involved. The concept of ruling came later. For the verb ‘authenteo,’ there is only one attested use in the sense of ‘to murder.’

Let us turn to the value that Chantraine held to be most basic, that of originating something or being held responsible for it. By the New Testament era, ‘authentes’ was already being used to denote an originator or instigator (Josephus Wars 1.582; Polybius 12.14.3; 22.14.2; Diodorus of Sicily 16.61. Psichari, “Effendi,” p. 426). The related adjective, ‘authentikos,’ like the English ‘authentic,’ implies something original or genuine. In the sense ‘to begin something, to take the initiative, or to be primarily responsible for it,’ the verb ‘authenteo’ is even used by the early church fathers for the creative activities of God (Eusebius “de ecclesiastica theologia” 3.5; J.P. Migne, “Patrologia Graeca” (Paris, 1857-66), 24:1013A; Dihle, “Authentes,” pp. 82 n.2, 83 n.1.). John Chrysostom (late fourth century) discusses the replacement of Judas in the book of Acts and writes, “Protos tou pragmatos authentei” (“He was primarily responsible for the matter”). In a discussion of lapsed brethren, Athanasius (mid-fourth century) suggests leniency for those who defected under compulsion but had not themselves instigated (authenteo) the problem: “Tois de me authentousi men tes asebeias parasyreisi de di’ananken kai bian” (Athanasius “Epistle to Rufinus” (ed. Migne 26.1180C).

“Authenteo,” as well as the related “authentizo,” could also mean “to take a matter or inheritance into one’s own hands” (Berliner griechische Urkunden [Aegyptische Urkunden aus den koniglichen Museen zu Berlin), vol. 1 (1895), no. 103.3, 8 (p. 122).It was equated with “autodikein” (“to have one’s own law courts or to take the law into one’s own hands”) (Thomas Magister (ed. Ritschl) 18.8; Moeris (ed. Piers), p. 58). For example, a bishop was asked to take a difficult marital situation in hand, and the pope to take a matter under his jurisdiction (Berliner griechische Urkunden 103; Basil “Epistle” 69.4.389A). In the sixth century, Lydus used the verb in the sense of taking the initiative, in a manner that combined the concepts both of starting something and of having the authority to do so (Johannes Laurentius Lydus, “de Magistratibus populi Romani,” ed. R. Wuensch (Leipzig; Teubner, 1903), 3:131.

In the late Renaissance, an era when scholars studied classical texts more thoroughly than is customary today and had materials to which we no longer have access, another definition was cited by lexiocographers: praebo me auctorem (“to declare oneself the author or source of anything”). “Authenteo,” when used with the genitive, as it is in 1 Timothy 2:12, could imply not only to claim sovereignty but also to claim authorship. “To represent onself as the author, originator, or source of something” was given in various older dictionaries that I have been able to consult, such as the widely used work of Cornelis Schrevel and the still-fundamental “Thesaurus Linguae Graecae” by Stephanus (Stephanus, “Thesaurus Graecae Linguae, ed. Dindorf (Paris: Didot, 1831-1865). The earliest of these entries date back to the Renaissance, the latest to the last century. This value disappeared from classical dictionaries about the time when the translation of 1 Timothy 2:12 was being challenged by feminists.

The differentiation between being an originator and professing to be one is a valid point. In several texts, the meaning is strengthened by the sense of asserting oneself to be the author or source of something. For instance, Saint Basil was in anguish because the rumor had gone out that he had anathematized his old friend Dianius. Where was he supposed to have proclaimed the anathema? he asked. In whose presence? Was he merely following someone else’s lead, or did he himself instigate the outrage or even profess himself (authenton) to be its author (katarchon kai authenton tou tolmetos)?(Basil “Epistle” 51.1) “Authenton” is the climax of this carefully constructed progression. It moves from a passive role to an active one and then to claiming responsibility for that role of instigator. Constantine’s Edict speaks of God who proclaims himself to be the author of judgment (“tes de kriseos authentei ho hypsistos theos”) (Eusebius “Vita Constantini” 2.48). Leo wrote to Pulcheria of Eutychus, the self-avowed author (authentountos) of the dissension in the church at Constantinople (Leo the Great “Epistle” 30.1).

Thus there is support for “authenteo” as meaning “to proclaim oneself the author or originator of something.” If we apply this meaning of “authenteo” to 1 Timothy 2:12, we would have “I do not allow a woman to teach nor to represent herself as the originator or source of man.” This then might be a prohibition against a woman teaching a mythology similar to that of the Gnostics in which Eve predated Adam and was his creator. Certain Gnostic myths also included the notion that Adam, who had been deluded, was liberated by the Gnosis of his more enlightened spouse. (Catherine Clark Kroeger, "The Meaning of 'Authenteo'", from "Women, Authority & The Bible" by Alvera Mickelsen, ed. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1986, pp. 229-232).