Can Women Pastor ?

[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'........................

[Jeffrey]

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'........................

I fully understand what apologetics are: providing a reasoned defense (in our context) of the faith. This has nothing to do with our conversation. Please tell me how it does. And what in God's name is an "apologetic trick?"


Yes, this is getting more and more comical. Spicing the thread up for a moment, I suppose. I ask again: what are your hermeneutic credentials?

Maybe we should get back to your primary list of points. Things were going better that way. It was when you got puffy-chested and thought you were the Great AFF Scholar, but started throwing out words you didn't understand, and saying things that were categorically false.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

I fully understand what apologetics are: providing a reasoned defense (in our context) of the faith. This has nothing to do with our conversation. Please tell me how it does. And what in God's name is an "apologetic trick?"

Nice try, but no cigar! Apolgetics is a defense alright [employed 8 times in the NT], which is PRECISELY what we're doing! Sheesh, how does this "have nothing to do w/ our conversation"???? Man, this is wierd!


Yes, this is getting more and more comical. Spicing the thread up for a moment, I suppose. I ask again: what are your hermeneutic credentials?

Why, you've even got me smiling now Jeffrey ol' fellow! The ol' "credentials" ploy is just ridiculous. You've yet to answer my questions, yet expect me to be at your beckoning call?? Ain't gonna' happen.................'till you learn to answer my questions as well!

Maybe we should get back to your primary list of points. Things were going better that way. It was when you got puffy-chested and thought you were the Great AFF Scholar, but started throwing out words you didn't understand, and saying things that were categorically false.

Not hardly! YOU falsely claim that I'm making "categorically false" statements. YOU apparently need more "credentials" of your own! Regardless, I'm not really interested in all of this, but simply won't allow you to attack a straw man...as you've been trying to do.

MUST run........will deal w/ you later [but would prefer to stick to the text]....LORD willing.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

Not hardly! YOU falsely claim that I'm making "categorically false" statements. YOU apparently need more "credentials" of your own! Regardless, I'm not really interested in all of this, but simply won't allow you to attack a straw man...as you've been trying to do.

MUST run........will deal w/ you later [but would prefer to stick to the text]....LORD willing.

Straw man? Is this your NEW fanciful word you are just throwing out?

Saying historical-cultural context is not part of the exegetical process is false. To elevate lexicons as the "primary exegetical tool" is false. There are many more things, but alas I'll stop at that. Please tell me what the straw man is here? Also tell me what "apologetics" have to do with anything here? Or "apologetic tricks?" lol

Stick to the Text... again you posture as a exegete, but don't seem to understand the whole process of interpreting scripture.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Straw man? Is this your NEW fanciful word you are just throwing out?

Saying historical-cultural context is not part of the exegetical process is false. To elevate lexicons as the "primary exegetical tool" is false. There are many more things, but alas I'll stop at that. Please tell me what the straw man is here? Also tell me what "apologetics" have to do with anything here? Or "apologetic tricks?" lol

Stick to the Text... again you posture as a exegete, but don't seem to understand the whole process of interpreting scripture.

Sheesh, this is about the 4th time that I've told you that history-cultural does indeed play a part in [the "whole process"] exegesis, but they do not celebrate the authority that Scripture itself does. What in the world can you not understand about this??

And don't blame me if you're obviously new to apologetics. You're the 1st person to EVER say that "apologetics has nothing to do w/ the conversation"??? Not real sure what to say about that one!

Gotta' go.................................

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

Sheesh, this is about the 4th time that I've told you that history-cultural does indeed play a part in [the "whole process"] exegesis, but they do not celebrate the authority that Scripture itself does. What in the world can you not understand about this??

And don't blame me if you're obviously new to apologetics. You're the 1st person to EVER say that "apologetics has nothing to do w/ the conversation"??? Not real sure what to say about that one!

Gotta' go.................................

New to it? Indeed, you are ignorant of that. Want to drop names?

Celebrate it above Scripture? The way you describe the historical-cultural context leads me to believe you see these as methods competing with each other, one supreme over the other, instead of a whole process. Plain enough put?

[Godsdrummer]

Originally Posted by rdp

Sheesh, this is about the 4th time that I've told you that history-cultural does indeed play a part in [the "whole process"] exegesis, but they do not celebrate the authority that Scripture itself does. What in the world can you not understand about this??

And don't blame me if you're obviously new to apologetics. You're the 1st person to EVER say that "apologetics has nothing to do w/ the conversation"??? Not real sure what to say about that one!

Gotta' go.................................

I think you are missing the point on the history-cultural part. Just as God handed down the Law to Isreal because of disobediance. This was not a eternal comandment it was for their time. Even then the Jew took and made the law a list of thou shalt nots as the Pharisee were practicing in Jesus day. So yes we must consider what and why Paul was writing what he was. To just say this verse says "women should keep silent" and use the authority of scripture statement is ludicrus, and this is why we have so many false doctrines. Too many live by the letter of the law and not the spirit of Gods word.

1Ti 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
1Ti 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

Of course Im sure you already have an explanation but here is something to ponder. Paul does not comand here nor does he say this is a law from God. This is not a comand from God this is Pauls opinion. Yes he basis his opinion on OT tradition but this is still not a command from God.

1Ti 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

As for 1 Cor. let me point out just one thing here to back up the way I see this.

1Co 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
1Co 14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
What does the law have to do with anything here. For after Christ we are not under the law. Further where in the law is the women commanded to be under obediance as you are saying. I would like to know what OT passage Paul would be refering to because I sure cant think of one. Maybe Im just getting old.