Can Women Pastor ?

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

The Didache is a highly debateable document, as you surely know. Besides, I'm appealling to Scripture, not history.

Here's your favorite comment of mine...."Gotta' go!" Try to look in later.

Well actually it was controversial with adding it to the canon (which it at first was added -- RCC still has it added to its collection of Apostolic Fathers.

"Appealing to scripture, not history" is what pains me the most. Historical context frames enlightens us as to what was going on when the Text was written, and therefore helping us to further understand the author's intent, purpose and meaning. For the life of me, I don't understand how you throw out historical evidence and claim to be the "champion of scripture." This is why I pester you about your so-called "Hermeneutic" claims.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Well actually it was controversial with adding it to the canon (which it at first was added -- RCC still has it added to its collection of Apostolic Fathers.

Pls. don't tell me that you're one of those who infer that this was written by the Apostles themselves!! It was thrown out of the canon for goooooooood reason!

"Appealing to scripture, not history" is what pains me the most. Historical context frames enlightens us as to what was going on when the Text was written, and therefore helping us to further understand the author's intent, purpose and meaning. For the life of me, I don't understand how you throw out historical evidence and claim to be the "champion of scripture." This is why I pester you about your so-called "Hermeneutic" claims.

"Pester" away, makes no difference to me. When you constantly deride well known terms such as "epistemology," etc., it only reveals your own lack of studiousness.

And for about the umpteenth time now, I'll say that I'm well aware of the historical/cultural aspect of Scripture. Problem is, you'll get a myriad of opinions as to what that is, since 1st century records are so scanty. I shy away from those who render the plainess of a verse such as I Tim. 2:11-15....making the Word of God of no effect. That's all I'm saying.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

"Pester" away, makes no difference to me. When you constantly deride well known terms such as "epistemology," etc., it only reveals your own lack of studiousness.

And for about the umpteenth time now, I'll say that I'm well aware of the historical/cultural aspect of Scripture. Problem is, you'll get a myriad of opinions as to what that is, since 1st century records are so scanty. I shy away from those who render the plainess of a verse such as I Tim. 2:11-15....making the Word of God of no effect. That's all I'm saying.

Where do I begin?

I didn't "deride" the word "epistemology," I chuckled at YOU. You amuse me in a weird way. (And I hope you weren't connecting "epistemology" to "epistles" either lol)

On the one hand, you recognize the historical/aspect of Scripture, and on the other you seem to think you can interpret a Text without it. Say what you mean and mean what you say.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Where do I begin?

I didn't "deride" the word "epistemology," I chuckled at YOU. You amuse me in a weird way. (And I hope you weren't connecting "epistemology" to "epistles" either lol)

Have you ever looked into the etymology of the term epistemology? Mu point is that there's very little metaphorical verses in the epistles. Some, but not very much, since they're pretty much direct instructions to the church.....inluding I Tim. 2:11-15, I Cor. 14:34!

On the one hand, you recognize the historical/aspect of Scripture, and on the other you seem to think you can interpret a Text without it. Say what you mean and mean what you say.

Can you not read? Sheesh, I've "said what I mean" constantly! Or, do you think I "say what I DON'T mean"?????

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

Can you not read? Sheesh, I've "said what I mean" constantly! Or, do you think I "say what I DON'T mean"?????

Context. That's a big hermeneutic word for you.

Read my remarks in CONTEXT.

In other words, don't tell me you see how historical-cultural context is necessary for interpret, and then give reasons why you won't use it and refer to this "plain meaning" of the Text. You're words are adding up here...

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Context. That's a big hermeneutic word for you.

Read my remarks in CONTEXT.

In other words, don't tell me you see how historical-cultural context is necessary for interpret, and then give reasons why you won't use it and refer to this "plain meaning" of the Text. You're words are adding up here...

Where did I ever say "I won't use" historical-cultural context:________? Surely you can fill in at least ONE blank can't ya'? Besides, my point is how does "I do not allow....." fit into merely a cultural ideaology? Are we part of the same church, or not?

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

Where did I ever say "I won't use" historical-cultural context:________? Surely you can fill in at least ONE blank can't ya'? Besides, my point is how does "I do not allow....." fit into merely a cultural ideaology? Are we part of the same church, or not?

Review your own quotes. You won't have to go back too far.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

Have you ever looked into the etymology of the term epistemology? Mu point is that there's very little metaphorical verses in the epistles. Some, but not very much, since they're pretty much direct instructions to the church.....inluding I Tim. 2:11-15, I Cor. 14:34!

*looking for that confused animation*

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

*looking for that confused animation*

Soooooooo much "substance" in this response? Sheesh, why am I even wasting my time on here??????