Cult of Diana in Ephesus-Women in Ministry

[homebild]

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}>

I only have time to address didaskein at the moment.

In EVERY Greek text, the ONLY word that is used is DIDASKEIN:

(Greek NT - Byz./Maj.) 1 Timothy 2:12 gunaiki de didaskein ouk epitrepw oude auqentein androV all einai en hsucia

Greek NT - W-H ) 1 Timothy 2:12 didaskein de gunaiki ouk epitrepw oude auqentein androV all einai en hsucia

(Greek NT - Textus Rec.) 1 Timothy 2:12 gunaiki de didaskein ouk epitrepw oude auqentein androV all einai en hsucia

There is NO DOUBT that didaskein is ther correct and only verb form to be considered here.

As far as the rest of your comments go, to ignore the cultural reality in which the female converts from the Dianic cult came to Christianity and to ignore the practices of the Dianic Cult against which paul spoke, and to again ignore the fact that the female Priscilla publically taught the male apostle Appollos in Ephesus seems to give your interpretation no place to stand.....

[Lionroot]

Homebild,

It is certainly clear that this is a concept to which you will adhere to without regard to scripture. This whole thread is against the simplist and clearest language . If you happen to be right then the scriptures are at once incomprehenciple, and God becomes a god of confusion. Which the scriptures say, in equally clear language, that He is not.

Examine you arguments. The word "men" is used to address both sexes? However when he meant both he said, men and women as in Acts 2:18, 5:14, 8:3, and more. Your second argument does not even address the issue raised, but misstates the facts, they were waiting for the Holy Ghost, not gathering for the purpose of replacing Judas. How have you independently decided the Peter, is not setting a precedent? I thought that the first action of a leader usually does set precedent. What would he have to do to set such a precedent. The scriptures absolutely do specify that a "man" was all they were looking for, additionally only two men were nominated. (And by men I mean two males).

You have made your position clear to even the casual reader. I am left with only one question. Are there any words that would convince you that women are not permitted "to teach or have authority over a man; she must be silent."? Or would you ignore them although they are printed in black and white?

God Bless,

Robert

 

 

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. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

[homebild]

Homebild,

Edited April 5, 2005 by homebild

[Guest Bro David™]

For example, When you refer to Peter standing up among the "brothers" (Acts 1:15) in his speech regarding the replacement for Judas, the Greek word used is not gender related and in fact depedning on the Greek text is not 'brothers' at all.

Only the Byzantine text uses andron while all the others (ie Textus Receptus, Westcott-Hort) use mathetes.

Mathetes means 'disciple' or more literally, 'pupil' without regard to gender.

Andron means literally 'a men's apartment building' or a 'banquet hall', not a 'male brother' and the Greek is simply conveying here that the apostles were to consider someone who had lived with them and had eaten with them from the beginning.

The root for andron is aner and even as Strong notes, can be used of males and females without regard to gender. (Acts 21)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In that event your understanding of that, the verse would mean Peter stood up together with the congregation or a group of people.

Am I right to assume that ?

I concur with the below.

Only the Byzantine text uses andron while all the others (ie Textus Receptus, Westcott-Hort) use mathetes.

With Love

David King

[Lionroot]

Homebild,

Yes, it is absolutely true that I do not know the Greek language. As a result I do depend on literally 100's of translators, to give me their best interpretations. Your translation, or at least your understanding of the Greek, flies in the face of all generally accepted English translations. Now somebody is not telling the truth.

I think I will stick with the translations I have. Thanks.

God Bless,

Robert

[Guest Bro David™]

Homebild,

Your translation, or at least your understanding of the Greek, flies in the face of all generally accepted English translations. Now somebody is not telling the truth. 

Robert

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That was a personal attack and a personal remark.

[Ovedya]

[quote name='Bro David

[Ovedya]

In EVERY Greek text, the ONLY word that is used is DIDASKEIN:

(Greek NT - Byz./Maj.) 1 Timothy 2:12 gunaiki de didaskein ouk epitrepw oude auqentein androV all einai en hsucia

Greek NT - W-H ) 1 Timothy 2:12 didaskein de gunaiki ouk epitrepw oude auqentein androV all einai en hsucia

(Greek NT - Textus Rec.) 1 Timothy 2:12 gunaiki de didaskein ouk epitrepw oude auqentein androV all einai en hsucia

There is NO DOUBT that didaskein is the correct and only verb form to be considered here.

I only have time for a few brief comments tonight...

First off, allow me to apologize. My research into the the online texts cited above bear out your comment. However, considering the fact that both Crosswalk and Blue Letter Bible reader it the word "didasko," I just wonder if it's every Greek text after all. I mean, where did they get that rendering.

In any case, in my last response I was distracted from the course of what I had originally intended to point out in your argument, which was something other than word ussage. I am not a scholar of the Greek language, so you probably have me there. I am simply going this course on logic alone. Whether that is a good or bad thing is entirely up to the reader.

In your last reponse you emphasized that the common ussage of the word comes from the way in which Greek poets taught actors how to read lines in a play. Then you stated the following:

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.

Actually, after doing some research, I discovered that the word is used exclusively to indicate the education of adults. The word "paideia" was used in the Greek language to indicate the instruction of children, whereas the word "didaskein" was used to indicate the instruction of adults. This point becomes somewhat relavent to the argument, because in the early church era it was compulsory for the women of the households and the slaves (If you were wealthy enough to own a slave) to educate the young children; whereas the education of young adults (An "adult" was 13 years of age at that time, so I suppose it's pretty relative) was done freely by educated men.

In any case, I doubt that you would have found such a "free exchange of ideas and concepts that enables one to mature, become educated, and act independently by means of critical thinking" in either the ancient Greek or Jewish cultures. Whether a child was educated at all in that era depended on whether his or her family had money/ political influence. And even then, a male child's primary education was mainly physical and not mental. In his elementary years a young person's knowledge was not gained "the free exchange of ideas" but through the direct impartation of knowledge from the educator. The purpose of a Greek education was to subordinate the individual to the needs of the state.

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.

Which was the precise method of teaching in the early Christian era, before Aristotle came along. Teaching was rigid and very indoctrinatory. Remember that the sole purpose of education was to produce subordinate individuals. Which meant that indoctrination was actually the primary goal of education!

Furthermore, we are not just talking about formal education here. We are talking about religious instruction! Religious instruction at it's very core is indoctrination, not "the free exchange of ideas." Do you think that Paul's education in the law had anything to do with the free exchange of ideas? No. It was absolute indoctrination into the Pharsitical sect! But where the Greek education would have indoctrinated persons to serve the Greek society, the religious education - Christian education - was, and is, idoctrination for the purpose of serving God, the Christian community, and society as a whole.

And whether the Greeks were sexist pigs or not, does not enter into this discussion at all, since the core of this issue is how the word is used in the Scriptures. I do believe that it has importance here with regard to it being oratory and authoritative. But whether it is sexist or not, does not enter in.

.... Priscilla publically taught the male apostle Appollos in Ephesus...

Ahhhh.....no she didn't. Acts 18:26 says that they "...took him to themselves." That would indicate that Apollos' corection was not done publicly at all. And it is only your assumption that Priscilla taught anything to Apollos at all. There is nothing in that verse or anywhere else that shows Priscilla teaching Apollos anything. You are casting a presumption upon a single word (Heautou w/var. Autos - "he," "she," "it," "them" (himself, itself, themselves, etc.)), which does not bear out your claim even remotely. It could have very well been Aquila doing all the talking for we know. So why make the presumption at all? There is no cause to believe that Priscilla taught Apollos a single thing! And in fact, because Aquila's name is used first this places Priscilla in a subjacent position to him. It is far more likely, given the structure of the verse, that it was Aquila that corrected Apollos with Priscilla being there simply as his wife (She is not, in fact, ever mentioned without her husband in the New Testament).

Nobody ignored your statement of facts, bro. They were simply wrong to begin with. Anyway, this was more than I had intended to type tonight. I've already stayed up way too late.

[truthnluv]

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:

The interesting point here, is that this word to teach is NOT the same form or word that is used

Edited April 6, 2005 by truthnluv

[Guest Sunking]

If Diana is the Goddess of CHildbearing, would not those be many breasts rather than many male parts?