Can Women Pastor ?

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

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?

I see Scripture as authoritative in nature, but not "history"...plain enough put?

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

I see Scripture as authoritative in nature, but not "history"...plain enough put?

Respectfully, plainly ignorant.

We are talking about "interpreting" Scripture. Remember that?

There is no meaning without context. Ask the translators what they used.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Respectfully, plainly ignorant.

I see, you can respect someone & yet throw out insults at the same time? From your demeanor, you're most likely a trinitarian [probably a Calvinist, but may be wrong].

We are talking about "interpreting" Scripture. Remember that?

Yea', such as "I do not allow a woamn to teach, or to excercise authority over a man."....Remember that?

There is no meaning without context. Ask the translators what they used.

Ughhh, the translators used the existing Greek manuscripts. From there, they employed Greek grammatical rules, context, etc. Where did I ever say that context is irrelevant? Indeed, I appeal to Scriptural context repeatedly since word definitions & syntax mean what they do accordingly. But, context is doctrinal [particulary the passages at hand]....and not ALWAYS culturally relevant, though culture can certainly flow into it, yet I would stop short of saying that culture has the ability to render a doctrinal passage inapplicable.

This is about the 5th time that I've explained this to you & yet you just kep hurling out insults...which reveals your "Christian" spirit????? I've repeatedly told you that I care less about your ad hominem [do I need to explain this one to you also?] attacks, but rather just the text.

So, my dear Watson, back to the texts of I Tim. 2. I'm willing to listen if you have something textually relevant to say. Otherwise, if you just keep up w/ your usual pomp, I'll simply start ignoring you.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

Ughhh, the translators used the existing Greek manuscripts. From there, they employed Greek grammatical rules, context, etc. Where did I ever say that context is irrelevant? Indeed, I appeal to Scriptural context repeatedly since word definitions & syntax mean what they do accordingly. But, context is doctrinal [particulary the passages at hand]....and not ALWAYS culturally relevant, though culture can certainly flow into it, yet I would stop short of saying that culture has the ability to render a doctrinal passage inapplicable.

This is about the 5th time that I've explained this to you & yet you just kep hurling out insults...which reveals your "Christian" spirit????? I've repeatedly told you that I care less about your ad hominem [do I need to explain this one to you also?] attacks, but rather just the text.

So, my dear Watson, back to the texts of I Tim. 2. I'm willing to listen if you have something textually relevant to say. Otherwise, if you just keep up w/ your usual pomp, I'll simply start ignoring you.

I give. You won't be honest enough to say you are flying by the seat of your pants on your limited knowledge of hermeneutics and the more you respond the more ignorant you sound.

Context is doctrinal? I about spit my water out of my nose. Context is neutral, it is the framework behind the so-called "literal text" and it gives the text meaning. A word changes according to its context. It also helps us understand authorial intent. You are awkwardly pitting exegetical context against literary, syntactical context. I have no idea why.

Trinitarian? Calvnist? Non-Christian Spirit? (Have you read a thing you've said to others on here. Not exactly God come in humble flesh material).

I think I've engaged you more than most on here. We took a tangent because when cocky people start spouting out things (especially posers), it's cynically fun to exploit that. You, my dear "Watson," have been exploited

To the subject at hand - the question is to wonder if Paul was reinforcing an already-existent universal prohibition against women teachers, creating a new one, or determine what situation he was responding to (the complex nature of epistles).

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

I give. You won't be honest enough to say you are flying by the seat of your pants on your limited knowledge of hermeneutics and the more you respond the more ignorant you sound.

Let's see: You're vaguely familiar w/ Daniel Wallace, claim that apologetics "have nothing to do" w/ a polemical disscussion, enquire about logical fallacies....then claim that "I" have limited hermeneutic comprehension???? I see, you've apparently "arrived"?? Apparently NOT. Next.....

Context is doctrinal? I about spit my water out of my nose. Context is neutral, it is the framework behind the so-called "literal text" and it gives the text meaning.

And my eyes got as wide a saucers when I read this. "Context is neutral"??? You apparently don't understand context. Context is the overall subject matter that the writer is dealing w/....which you claim is "neutral"?? Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeew! I suppose Paul's teachings on faith were then "neutral"?? Man, this just gets worse & worse! Next.....

A word changes according to its context. It also helps us understand authorial intent. You are awkwardly pitting exegetical context against literary, syntactical context. I have no idea why.

NOt at all, for about the 6th time now, I'll say again that context most certainly plays a part in exegesis. In fact, I'd say that context is one of the primary interpretation rules. But, I've said this for about 6 times now, so I'm sure you'll simply ignore this also???

Trinitarian? Calvnist? Non-Christian Spirit? (Have you read a thing you've said to others on here. Not exactly God come in humble flesh material).

Oh brother, so you obviously are reluctant to affirm your doctrinal posture...next.....

I think I've engaged you more than most on here. We took a tangent because when cocky people start spouting out things (especially posers), it's cynically fun to exploit that. You, my dear "Watson," have been exploited

Tks. for the smile this morning. This coming from someone who isn't even "terribly familiar" w/ possibly the greatest Greek scholar/textual critic of our day, has not even read Hartill's infamous book on Hermeneutics, derides logical fallacies that he makes repeatedly...then says "You've been exposed as a poser"??? Yea' man....next......

To the subject at hand - the question is to wonder if Paul was reinforcing an already-existent universal prohibition against women teachers, creating a new one, or determine what situation he was responding to (the complex nature of epistles).

Now we're getting somewhere. As I've pointed out, the epistle was addressing church order, as it plainly says. And it's from this perspective that Paul commands, "I do not allow a woman to teach, or to excercise authority over a man." He then appeals to the creation model to butress his doctrine.

Honestly here, who would simply allow this text [& I Cor. 14:34] to speak for itself & conclude that God calls women into His authoritative 5-fold ministry? This is precisely the thing that he was forbidding.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey
I give. You won't be honest enough to say you are flying by the seat of your pants on your limited knowledge of hermeneutics and the more you respond the more ignorant you sound.

Let's see: You're vaguely familiar w/ Daniel Wallace, claim that apologetics "have nothing to do" w/ a polemical disscussion, enquire about logical fallacies....then claim that "I" have limited hermeneutic comprehension???? I see, you've apparently "arrived"?? Apparently NOT. Next.....

The difference between you and I is that I don't throw out names without knowing what I'm talking about. Do you realize how many scholars are out there, particularly scholars of Koine Greek? Thank you for introducing him to me. I'm glad you've been acquainted. Shall I go through my bookshelve to try and name stump you?

And will you quit talking about apologetics! haha. Because a discussion is polemical in nature, doesn't make it related to apologetics. Try again. I've studied a great deal in Christian apologetics. I assure you that women in minsitry has never been a topic we've covered -- it's not remotely within the scope of Christian Apologetics! ha. As far as my insistence on you flying by the seat of your pants, you continue to prove my point.

Context is doctrinal? I about spit my water out of my nose. Context is neutral, it is the framework behind the so-called "literal text" and it gives the text meaning.

And my eyes got as wide a saucers when I read this. "Context is neutral"??? You apparently don't understand context. Context is the overall subject matter that the writer is dealing w/....which you claim is "neutral"?? Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeew! I suppose Paul's teachings on faith were then "neutral"?? Man, this just gets worse & worse! Next.....

Seriously, you should just stop. Go ahead. Go get your hermeneutic book out and go freshen up, and then come back, because you are sounding frankly off-the-chart ignorant right now. Context is not subject matter, it includes: historical-cultural considerations (when was the letter written, to whom, for what reason, what customs are different, etc), the immediate text that both precedes and proceeds after the passage in question (this could include a whole chapter, whole letter or even more broad than that). Yes, context is not doctrinal! We form doctrine from our exegesis from the Text, which we arrive at using context. Help you a bit?

A word changes according to its context. It also helps us understand authorial intent. You are awkwardly pitting exegetical context against literary, syntactical context. I have no idea why.

NOt at all, for about the 6th time now, I'll say again that context most certainly plays a part in exegesis. In fact, I'd say that context is one of the primary interpretation rules. But, I've said this for about 6 times now, so I'm sure you'll simply ignore this also???
See above. You continue to contradict yourself. I suspect the issue here is knowing what "context" is. Perhaps you are under a nothing presupposition (another factor of exegesis by the way), concerning what the word means. And everytime you've said it, you issued a qualifier that showed me you don't understand.

Trinitarian? Calvnist? Non-Christian Spirit? (Have you read a thing you've said to others on here. Not exactly God come in humble flesh material).

Oh brother, so you obviously are reluctant to affirm your doctrinal posture...next.....
Oh... good comeback. Real good. Man, you told me. "You disagree with me... quick think of the most 'heretical' people you can insult him with: you are a Calvinist! Neener, neener, neener!" Seriously though.


I think I've engaged you more than most on here. We took a tangent because when cocky people start spouting out things (especially posers), it's cynically fun to exploit that. You, my dear "Watson," have been exploited

Tks. for the smile this morning. This coming from someone who isn't even "terribly familiar" w/ possibly the greatest Greek scholar/textual critic of our day, has not even read Hartill's infamous book on Hermeneutics, derides logical fallacies that he makes repeatedly...then says "You've been exposed as a poser"??? Yea' man....next......
To the subject at hand - the question is to wonder if Paul was reinforcing an already-existent universal prohibition against women teachers, creating a new one, or determine what situation he was responding to (the complex nature of epistles).
Aside from Hartill (not Harthill btw), there are numerous recognized books on Hermeneutics. One of the best is written by Gordon Fee, others by DR Dungan, Darryl Erkel, and a phenominal book co-authored by Duvall and Hays. You hardly own the corner on Hermeneutic textbooks. So other than throwing out Hartill's name, what is your training in Hermeneutics? I wouldn't continue to ask this except throughout this thread you've posed as an expert, when really your less than novice. Just be honest. Your argument against women preachers has been argued by people more experienced than you, so you have valid arguments to bring to the table, but just stop the posing.


Now we're getting somewhere. As I've pointed out, the epistle was addressing church order, as it plainly says. And it's from this perspective that Paul commands, "I do not allow a woman to teach, or to excercise authority over a man." He then appeals to the creation model to butress his doctrine.

But why was this an issue in "church order?" Do we know? Why would he mention this piece about women? Could the issue of husbands and wives be one of an issue of their behavior when assembled? All possibilities.

Honestly here, who would simply allow this text [& I Cor. 14:34] to speak for itself & conclude that God calls women into His authoritative 5-fold ministry? This is precisely the thing that he was forbidding.

Great question for the forum. About the "authoritative five-fold ministry: this includes more than just pastors and more than just individuals that teach adult men at public meetings. Are you sure you want to take it that far?

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Great question for the forum. About the "authoritative five-fold ministry: this includes more than just pastors and more than just individuals that teach adult men at public meetings. Are you sure you want to take it that far?

Ho-Hum, where to begin.

You again post in a way that I don't know how to respond to each post, though I'd love to. Forgive my computer illiteracy.

I did catch your statement implying that women preachers was never an apologetical issue in Christian circles. I almost fell out of my chair when I read this! Good grief, this issue has been debated for eons...yet you imply that it's "never been an apologetical issue"??????????? Seriously, you're just sinking further & further unbeknownst to you.

Context is the topic/subject matter at hand. Are you denying this? Yes [for about the 7th time now...Ho-Hum???] culture/history can flow into context, but it does not render said passage inapplicable to the church. Scorn it all day long, makes noooo difference to me. You apparently aren't the "apologist/scholar" you would have everyone believe on here. In sum, "Ain't fallin' for it!"

Forced to run, library closing. Brifly scanned your post regarding exegesis. My response: AND??? I've never denied this [let's see this makes probably about 8 times I've said...wierd???]..........so, back to the text.

Look, we'll not agree on hermeneutics, so how about we just stick to the actual text of I Tim. 2, for starters. Try to respond sometime Thurs.