Can Women Pastor ?

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Exegesis has nothing to do with historical/cultural context? I'm appalled at that statement. That can't be more wrong. You have taken a Hermeneutics class or at least read a good book on the subject? I say that not out of disrespect, but only because of how shocked I am that you'd make such a statement that couldn't be more wrong. Context (both literary, historical-cultural, etc) is all part and parcel of exegeting the Text.

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 don't have time or patience to re-quote when you can back browse a few pages and copy/paste if you care to respond.

Your "arguments" are nothing new, will try to learn how to copy/paste & respond if I have time [I'm embarrasingly computer illiterate!].

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

Your "arguments" are nothing new, will try to learn how to copy/paste & respond if I have time [I'm embarrasingly computer illiterate!].

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?

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.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

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.

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

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

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

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!


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?

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.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

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!


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.

Oh please! Like I'm fallin' for this..............Funny that NONE of the apostles attended Beth-Hillel ot Beth Shalom! I anticipate your response, but will wait before I answer. Besides, what are YOUR credentials? And this is relevant to women preacher's........HOW?????

[Jeffrey]

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.
Oh please! Like I'm fallin' for this..............Funny that NONE of the apostles attended Beth-Hillel ot Beth Shalom! I anticipate your response, but will wait before I answer. Besides, what are YOUR credentials? And this is relevant to women preacher's........HOW?????

Apologetic trick? Hahaha. There you go again using words that lack any sense to the conversation. Yes, I deny that word definitions and syntax are the primary factor in exegesis. Please refer me to a source otherwise. I'll be happy to reconsider. Historical-cultural context does not battle with scripture, it helps us understand it's meaning. All the tools work together. They aren't in competition. There's only a Hermeneutic or there's not. No "full" and "light."

I'll be nice. But you're making this more comical when you don't admit you're just making things up.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Apologetic trick? Hahaha. There you go again using words that lack any sense to the conversation. Yes, I deny that word definitions and syntax are the primary factor in exegesis. Please refer me to a source otherwise. I'll be happy to reconsider. Historical-cultural context does not battle with scripture, it helps us understand it's meaning. All the tools work together. They aren't in competition. There's only a Hermeneutic or there's not. No "full" and "light."

You apparently do not understand the meaning of apologetics. And, still waiting on your all important credentials!

So, you place history on the same plane as Scripture? I agree [for about the 3rd time now] that history is a "help" [seize on that word], but you entirely side-stepped my comments on 1st century historical records. Tell us Jeffrey, how concrete is the historical narrative of the 1st century outside of the recognized canon?? Answer pls.:__________?

I'll be nice. But you're making this more comical when you don't admit you're just making things up.

Ughhh, YOU're the one who apparently does not even know what apologetics is! Would you mind defining this term for us? Sheeesh, just gets worse & worse eh'........................