Can Women Pastor ?

[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.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

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.

1) "Apologetic trick" remember when you said that? Nothing we are discussing here has anything to do with the field of Apologetics. Apologetics speaks in defense of issues much more broad (defending Christianity in general, existence of God, presenting a rational basis for faith, and exposing flaws of non-Christian worldviews. If you wanted to loosely use the word "apologist" sure. Anyhow. You won't ever (of course) admit or agree you had no clue when you said what you did.

2) Historical-cultural context most assuredly can change the way we view/see/intepret the Text. I could list examples, but once I'll be brief and just explain to you these basic concepts of hermeneutics.

3) I'm not an apologist or scholar. I'm a student. I've never pretended to be such. You, however, have acted as a poser and I've simply called you out on it. The more you protest, the more you hang yourself.

A correct hermeneutic is paramount and fundamentally important to understanding the authorial intent of 1 Timothy 2.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

1) "Apologetic trick" remember when you said that? Nothing we are discussing here has anything to do with the field of Apologetics. Apologetics speaks in defense of issues much more broad (defending Christianity in general, existence of God, presenting a rational basis for faith, and exposing flaws of non-Christian worldviews. If you wanted to loosely use the word "apologist" sure. Anyhow. You won't ever (of course) admit or agree you had no clue when you said what you did.

You're simply wrong here. I knew full well what "Apologetic Trick" means, but believe what you will.

2) Historical-cultural context most assuredly can change the way we view/see/intepret the Text. I could list examples, but once I'll be brief and just explain to you these basic concepts of hermeneutics.

My overall point was that history/culture from the 1st century are so scanty, that's it's hard to state in concrete terms anything definitively...which you never responded to.

3) I'm not an apologist or scholar. I'm a student. I've never pretended to be such. You, however, have acted as a poser and I've simply called you out on it. The more you protest, the more you hang yourself.

Assertions are not evidence, but think what you will [i.e., "hang myself"], makes no difference to me. I do not think of myself as a "scholar." I have much to learn, I'm well aware, but I've learned much also. As you apparently have as well.

A correct hermeneutic is paramount and fundamentally important to understanding the authorial intent of 1 Timothy 2.

Which has been my point the entire time.

Very sick, headed to the doctor. Will most likely have to take a rain check here 'till I'm better. Blessings.................