Cult of Diana in Ephesus-Women in Ministry

[nebula]

Of particular note, we will concentrate on the word for 'teach' which is  didaskein, and the word 'authority' which is auqentein.

DIDASKEIN---Although the word didaskein means 'to teach', it has a very specific and limited application in the Greek language. It literally means the way in which the Greek Dramatic Poets taught the actors in a play to say their lines and how to perform their bits of action:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext...entry%3D%238291

The interesting point here, is that this word to teach is NOT the same form or word that is used  when we think of someone as a teacher in a school or a professor in a college, or even in the preaching and teaching of the Gospel in the church where such teaching involves the free exchange of ideas and concepts that enables one to mature, become educated, and act independently by means of critical thinking. In fact, it means quite the opposite. Didaskein is not the reasoned explanation of evidence or the logical conclusions reached thereby.

Didaskein means simply to indoctrinate one to a particular point of view without regard to any other. The playwright or director only wishes his actors and performers to mimic and produce his thoughts and words on the stage, not their own. The cast is limited to speaking and acting as the playwright directs, and the cast does not have the ability to change the script or the action. The goal of didaskein is to produce a rote, repetitive emoting without regard to thought.

It should be noted as well, that the Greek stage was completely sexist. Women were not allowed to act. All roles were played by men, even those of female characters. This will prove of interest later.

It should also be noted that our English word didactic comes from this Greek root and in part means to 'teach or moralize obsessively'. This too will be of interest later.

AUQENTEIN--This Greek word translated as 'authority' above, actually has a more specific meaning and is more properly considered as:

-to have full power or authority over

-to impose one's will on another

-to inundate or overpower

-to govern in a manner that uses corrupt power for selfish interest

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/morph...eek&formentry=1

In Latin, the Vulgate used the word dominari which means:

-to be Lord over

-to dominate

-to domineer

-to act as a tyrant or despot with absolute power

I take it this to say that the instruction is not that women are not allowed to "teach" men as we understand teaching today, but rather that women are not allowed to disciple men?

[homebild]

Of particular note, we will concentrate on the word for 'teach' which is

Edited April 3, 2005 by homebild

[Guest Bro David™]

It seems more likely from the context of Ephesus that women are not to domineer men in the same manner that men are not to domineer women, but that all need to learn in all humily and in silence from one another.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi there greetings,

I can see where you got this in the bible.

It seems more likely from the context of Ephesus that women are not to domineer men

I have no clue where you got this.

but that all need to learn in all humily and in silence from one another.

With Love

David King

[Lionroot]

Greetings Homebild,

I was reading in Acts Chapter 1 today and found some interesting scripture, I was hoping you could reconcile to what you have been teaching.

There is a prayer meeting of men and women in Jerusalem.(13-14) Peter stood among the believers(15), which is clearly a general term for both the men and the women in the room. What is interesting here is that he addresses just the men, with the term "Brothers".(16) He explains that a replacement is neccessary for Judas. Specifing that the replacement must be one of the "men" who had been with Jesus since John's Baptism, He ignores the women who had also been with Jesus during that time.(Luke 23:49,55) Why would he do that if a woman could be an apostle, and take this type of leadership?(20)

It would appear that we are no longer talking about Pauls practice, but Peter's as well.

God Bless,

Robert

[Lionroot]

Greetings homebild,

Why didn't you include the scripture from which you get this "MUTUAL" submission?

4The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of selfcontrol. 6I say this as a concession, not as a command. -1 Corinthians 7:4-6

Could it be because the verse is about intimacy between a man and his wife, and not about the ministry at all? Perhaps you were thinking of another verse?

Just a thought,

God Bless,

Robert

This does not make Eve inferior to Adam, but co-equal as Paul reminds us elsewhere and that submission by the sexes is MUTUAL in Jesus Christ.

But Paul's universal truth can be applied to the Church Universal: God is no respector of person's or sexes and minstry as well as the Gospel is open to everyone and that men need to submit to women in the same manner that they submit to men.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Ovedya]

DIDASKEIN---Although the word didaskein means 'to teach', it has a very specific and limited application in the Greek language. It literally means the way in which the Greek Dramatic Poets taught the actors in a play to say their lines and how to perform their bits of action:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext...entry%3D%238291

The interesting point here, is that this word to teach is NOT the same form or word that is used when we think of someone as a teacher in a school or a professor in a college, or even in the preaching and teaching of the Gospel in the church where such teaching involves the free exchange of ideas and concepts that enables one to mature, become educated, and act independently by means of critical thinking. In fact, it means quite the opposite. Didaskein is not the reasoned explanation of evidence or the logical conclusions reached thereby.

Didaskein means simply to indoctrinate one to a particular point of view without regard to any other. The playwright or director only wishes his actors and performers to mimic and produce his thoughts and words on the stage, not their own. The cast is limited to speaking and acting as the playwright directs, and the cast does not have the ability to change the script or the action. The goal of didaskein is to produce a rote, repetitive emoting without regard to thought.

Actually, the form you quoted is incorrect. Therefore, your argument using the definition for the variation "didaskein" is inapplicable.

The correct word is "didasko": http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/wor...587947-325.html , which is a the verb form meaning "to teach": http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1...99-1841.html#12

Obviously instead of chosing the most common form, which is typically the first definition in any dictionary, you chose to the less common form to make your case. The correct form is "didasko," which, according to the website that you quoted from means, "to teach (i. e. instruct) a person, or teach a thing." In fact, it is actually the root word that didaskien is formed from.

AUQENTEIN--This Greek word translated as 'authority' above, actually has a more specific meaning and is more properly considered as:

-to have full power or authority over

-to impose one's will on another

-to inundate or overpower

-to govern in a manner that uses corrupt power for selfish interest

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/morph...eek&formentry=1

In Latin, the Vulgate used the word dominari which means:

-to be Lord over

-to dominate

-to domineer

-to act as a tyrant or despot with absolute power

It becomes clear, then, that Paul to Timothy is instructing against excesses and specifics here, and not the generalized actions of women. We will see this even more clearly as we consider the culture that existed at Ephesus at the time Paul wrote to Timothy.

Wrong conclusion. there is no evidence at all that suggests Paul was writing against excesses in authority. The fact that you have ignored here from the Biblical evidence is that Paul in the next two verses give 2 reasons for his word against women teaching in the church, and also confirms the man's authority over the woman: "For Adam was formed first, then Eve; And Adam was not deceived; but the woman having been quite deceived, has fallen into transgression." (vv. 13-14).

The first reason for Paul's confirmation of the man's absolute authority (It should be pointed out here that the Greek word is actually used to emphasize the man's absolute authority over the woman, and not to indicate tyranical treatment) over the woman is that Adam was formed first. In the Jewish tradition the firstborn of any household gets the birthright. He gets a double portion of the inheritance of the house (Deut. 21:15-17) and enjoys the priveledge of having the same judicial authority as the father (2 Chron. 21:3). That Adam was the firstborn of the first creation indicates that he has the birthright of the first creation. Paul even uses Adam to show how Christ became the firstborn of the new creation according to His resurrection, and was given the highest name above all names because of it (Rom. 8:29; Heb. 1:6; Col. 1:18).

Secondly, Paul points out that it was not Adam who was deceived, but Eve. And therefore, because of this deception it is presumed that the woman cannot have a place of authority over her husband or over other men. Now, the transgression of Adam was passed on to all men because of his authority over it. All of creation is said to have fallen because of Adam's transgression. However, Eve's transgression was mainly related to her having been deceived. And as such, a woman being the weaker vessel (1 Pet. 3:7) is much more prone to deception in general.

So, the cult of Diana really has little to do with anything. Certainly the culture had to be dealt with. But Paul's teaching concerning women asserting authority over men stands alone.

All you are attempting to do here is to discredit the Bible through various means. You have already confessed that you do not believe the Bible is the complete Word of God. You have written that you do not believe that the spiritual principals and doctrinal teachings in Paul's letters are applicable to the entire church, despite my indisputable evidence taken directly from Scripture that they are. And you have confessed that not only are we free to take away or add anything to the Scriptures that we please, but that we could potentially canonize new books and add them to what we already have!

Finally, you have all but refused to address the veritable landslide of moral dilemmas and doctrinal "loopholes" that your views represent to the orthodox faith. If I were to adopt your view of the Bible, I might as well leave the Christian faith entirely. I may as well not believe anything that the Bible tells me concerning God - His nature and Person, Christ - His incarnation, death, and resurrection; the efficacy of Christ's shed blood; the importance of seeing Christ displayed in typology in the Old Testament, and just about every teaching that the epistles of the New Testament contain.

Furthermore, we would be free to receive unrepentant homosexuals into the church, and into leading positions in the church. We would be free to allow a man to marry more than one woman, and even have relationships with little boys (After all, the Greeks and Romans both participated in homosexual pedophilia. Who's to say that Paul, a Roman by birth, did not do the same? Surely he had several young men accompany him on his journeys). Because after we are finished completely deconstructing everything in the Bible that we regard as uninspired and inapplicable to the modern church, and after we are finished adding whatever suits our particular tastes (But that we would say is "inspired" nevertheless), what are we left to?

....Well....here's a little hint: "All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way;..." (Isa. 53:6a)

[homebild]

[quote name='Bro David

Edited April 4, 2005 by homebild

[Guest shiloh357]

DIDASKEIN---Although the word didaskein means 'to teach', it has a very specific and limited application in the Greek language. It literally means the way in which the Greek Dramatic Poets taught the actors in a play to say their lines and how to perform their bits of action:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext...entry%3D%238291

The interesting point here, is that this word to teach is NOT the same form or word that is used when we think of someone as a teacher in a school or a professor in a college, or even in the preaching and teaching of the Gospel in the church where such teaching involves the free exchange of ideas and concepts that enables one to mature, become educated, and act independently by means of critical thinking. In fact, it means quite the opposite. Didaskein is not the reasoned explanation of evidence or the logical conclusions reached thereby.

Didaskein means simply to indoctrinate one to a particular point of view without regard to any other. The playwright or director only wishes his actors and performers to mimic and produce his thoughts and words on the stage, not their own. The cast is limited to speaking and acting as the playwright directs, and the cast does not have the ability to change the script or the action. The goal of didaskein is to produce a rote, repetitive emoting without regard to thought.

Actually, the form you quoted is incorrect. Therefore, your argument using the definition for the variation "didaskein" is inapplicable.

The correct word is "didasko": http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/wor...587947-325.html , which is a the verb form meaning "to teach": http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1...99-1841.html#12

Obviously instead of chosing the most common form, which is typically the first definition in any dictionary, you chose to the less common form to make your case. The correct form is "didasko," which, according to the website that you quoted from means, "to teach (i. e. instruct) a person, or teach a thing." In fact, it is actually the root word that didaskien is formed from.

AUQENTEIN--This Greek word translated as 'authority' above, actually has a more specific meaning and is more properly considered as:

-to have full power or authority over

-to impose one's will on another

-to inundate or overpower

-to govern in a manner that uses corrupt power for selfish interest

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/morph...eek&formentry=1

In Latin, the Vulgate used the word dominari which means:

-to be Lord over

-to dominate

-to domineer

-to act as a tyrant or despot with absolute power

It becomes clear, then, that Paul to Timothy is instructing against excesses and specifics here, and not the generalized actions of women. We will see this even more clearly as we consider the culture that existed at Ephesus at the time Paul wrote to Timothy.

Wrong conclusion. there is no evidence at all that suggests Paul was writing against excesses in authority. The fact that you have ignored here from the Biblical evidence is that Paul in the next two verses give 2 reasons for his word against women teaching in the church, and also confirms the man's authority over the woman: "For Adam was formed first, then Eve; And Adam was not deceived; but the woman having been quite deceived, has fallen into transgression." (vv. 13-14).

The first reason for Paul's confirmation of the man's absolute authority (It should be pointed out here that the Greek word is actually used to emphasize the man's absolute authority over the woman, and not to indicate tyranical treatment) over the woman is that Adam was formed first. In the Jewish tradition the firstborn of any household gets the birthright. He gets a double portion of the inheritance of the house (Deut. 21:15-17) and enjoys the priveledge of having the same judicial authority as the father (2 Chron. 21:3). That Adam was the firstborn of the first creation indicates that he has the birthright of the first creation. Paul even uses Adam to show how Christ became the firstborn of the new creation according to His resurrection, and was given the highest name above all names because of it (Rom. 8:29; Heb. 1:6; Col. 1:18).

Secondly, Paul points out that it was not Adam who was deceived, but Eve. And therefore, because of this deception it is presumed that the woman cannot have a place of authority over her husband or over other men. Now, the transgression of Adam was passed on to all men because of his authority over it. All of creation is said to have fallen because of Adam's transgression. However, Eve's transgression was mainly related to her having been deceived. And as such, a woman being the weaker vessel (1 Pet. 3:7) is much more prone to deception in general.

So, the cult of Diana really has little to do with anything. Certainly the culture had to be dealt with. But Paul's teaching concerning women asserting authority over men stands alone.

All you are attempting to do here is to discredit the Bible through various means. You have already confessed that you do not believe the Bible is the complete Word of God. You have written that you do not believe that the spiritual principals and doctrinal teachings in Paul's letters are applicable to the entire church, despite my indisputable evidence taken directly from Scripture that they are. And you have confessed that not only are we free to take away or add anything to the Scriptures that we please, but that we could potentially canonize new books and add them to what we already have!

Finally, you have all but refused to address the veritable landslide of moral dilemmas and doctrinal "loopholes" that your views represent to the orthodox faith. If I were to adopt your view of the Bible, I might as well leave the Christian faith entirely. I may as well not believe anything that the Bible tells me concerning God - His nature and Person, Christ - His incarnation, death, and resurrection; the efficacy of Christ's shed blood; the importance of seeing Christ displayed in typology in the Old Testament, and just about every teaching that the epistles of the New Testament contain.

Furthermore, we would be free to receive unrepentant homosexuals into the church, and into leading positions in the church. We would be free to allow a man to marry more than one woman, and even have relationships with little boys (After all, the Greeks and Romans both participated in homosexual pedophilia. Who's to say that Paul, a Roman by birth, did not do the same? Surely he had several young men accompany him on his journeys). Because after we are finished completely deconstructing everything in the Bible that we regard as uninspired and inapplicable to the modern church, and after we are finished adding whatever suits our particular tastes (But that we would say is "inspired" nevertheless), what are we left to?

....Well....here's a little hint: "All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way;..." (Isa. 53:6a)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well said, Ovedya!!

[Guest Bro David™]

[quote name='Bro David

[homebild]

Greetings Homebild,

I was reading in Acts Chapter 1 today and found some interesting scripture, I was hoping you could reconcile to what you have been teaching.

There is a prayer meeting of men and women in Jerusalem.(13-14) Peter stood among the believers(15), which is clearly a general term for both the men and the women in the room. What is interesting here is that he addresses just the men, with the term "Brothers".(16) He explains that a replacement is neccessary for Judas. Specifing that the replacement must be one of the "men" who had been with Jesus since John's Baptism, He ignores the women who had also been with Jesus during that time.(Luke 23:49,55) Why would he do that if a woman could be an apostle, and take this type of leadership?(20)

It would appear that we are no longer talking about Pauls practice, but Peter's as well.

God Bless,

Robert

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think there are too many presumptions in your premise.

First, 'brothers' can also refer to males and females in the same manner that 'men' can also refer to males and females.

Second, the convention here was in part specifically designed to fill the abandoned apostolic post left by Judas and to fulfill the scripture than 'another should fill his post'.

It is NOT a precedent setting action for the selection and installation for all or any other apostle as an examination of the calling and installation of Paul or any other as an apostle will clarify.

The scripture also does not to my knowledge specify that the nominee had to me a 'male' but I do not have time to research it right now.

Of interesting side note, some scholars who do support the fact that Junia was a female apostle suggest she was actaully Johanna who was said to have accompanied Jesus and was present with Mary Magdalene when se enetered the empty tomb.

This might make a case that some fo the women there, were actually considered since they too, were with Jesus from the beginning.