Can Women Pastor ?

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Bias?

"well done" -- I thought he did a great job at do a line-by-line break-down on the text. Bias? lol

Synogogues are not mentioned. True. But clearly you didn't read Prax's post then. He never made that comment. He did say that many of these Christians were Jews, and one's that just a year earlier religiously and faithfully assembled in synagogue. That those traditions would cease in one year is unthinkable.

So calm down and address his points.

Ughhhh, I just did address them. He's making unsupported assertions outside of the text. And you applaud him for it???????? Unreal. Is this what they taught you in your "hermeneutics" courses????

[rdp]

gotta' go, look in tommorrow.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

Ughhhh, I just did address them. He's making unsupported assertions outside of the text. And you applaud him for it???????? Unreal. Is this what they taught you in your "hermeneutics" courses????

What are his "unsupported" assertions?

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

What are his "unsupported" assertions?

Introducing a "synagogue" theory into the text, which has absolutely NOTHING to do w/ the subject of I Tim. 2:11-15, & is totally unsupported from the actual text itself. Then, you pat him on the back saying "good job"????? I'd say you need to get your money back on your "hermeneutics" courses, or reread the books!

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

Introducing a "synagogue" theory into the text, which has absolutely NOTHING to do w/ the subject of I Tim. 2:11-15, & is totally unsupported from the actual text itself. Then, you pat him on the back saying "good job"????? I'd say you need to get your money back on your "hermeneutics" courses, or reread the books!

I'd say you need to save up for one or two yourself!

Don't say it's "unsupported" then go on to say you reject it because it doesn't agree with you.

If NT churches were very much influenced and shaped by Judaism (the faith of most of the church leaders, Christ being the fulfillment of their law), I think it's a fair assertion that these traditions would still be in the church only a year or two later. It's not really a stretch.

You must HATE exegetical commentaries, huh? Nothing but "assertions" of people interpreting passages in light of their historical context. Those silly buffoons!

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

I'd say you need to save up for one or two yourself!

Don't say it's "unsupported" then go on to say you reject it because it doesn't agree with you.

If NT churches were very much influenced and shaped by Judaism (the faith of most of the church leaders, Christ being the fulfillment of their law), I think it's a fair assertion that these traditions would still be in the church only a year or two later. It's not really a stretch.

Very good Jeff, then pls, demonstrate a Jewish woman expositior of the TANAKH:__________? This merely advances the plainess of I Tim. 2:11-15.

You must HATE exegetical commentaries, huh? Nothing but "assertions" of people interpreting passages in light of their historical context. Those silly buffoons!

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!

[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.

[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!