1 Timothy 2:15

[inhistime]

Sorry, Inhistime, but I switched off at the "do you see that this is what Peter is saying" bit. Your tone is SO patronising! I am not entirely ignorant of the Scripture! In any event, I'd prefer Neopatriarch's "thus saith the Lord" exegesis any day, although I also recognise that you cannot offer it because God has not entrusted you, as a woman, with that same authority. However, I do think you could very capably teach children and other women, although I would probably contest your interpretation!

Ruth.

PS Before you contest the male/female role, please consider why God has not entrusted men with childbearing and why it is the preserve of the woman.

Talk about patronizing, whew. And this is one woman to another no less.

Ruth, I do believe you have misread Cheryl. When she asks "do you see", she is really hoping that you are understanding what she is trying to show you. Text only communication is very difficult because most of human conversation is exchanged in tone, eye contact, and body language, none of which is present in text only communication.

Your comparison between child bearing and teaching/leading authority is ??? since there is no comparison. They are not opposites. One does not oppose the other. One has nothing to do with the other. The balance is that the stronger human was given the ability to contain and pass the seed and the weaker in frame human (body adpatability for the carrying of the child) was given the ability to feed the maturing seed to birth.

Buddhism teaches that men are leaders and givers because of the shape of their genitals and women are receivers and followers because of same. These are not Scriptural teachings. No such thinking exists in Scripture.

OOOPs,

Cheryl is trying to show HER opinion, not reveal God's word on the matter. At least, that is how I have received it. And whether or not she intends, I have found her "let us see what..." approach patronising, and it has not only been used to me but is rather a general approach on her part towards all protagonsists. Fair enough, I did say that I was offering a very non PC response and was ready to have my head bitten off for same. Nevertheless, that is my honest opinion - right or wrong.

And no, in a word, I am not "understanding what she is trying to show me". All I am understanding is a woman who has an ulterior motive which is to attempt to prove a personal preconception through distorting the plain counsel of Scripture.

And now I shall fully retire even from debating the debate.

Ruth

Dear Ruth,

My opinion is worth nothing at all. What I have been trying to do is reveal the truth from God's word. That is why I quote scripture and don't just give my opinion. God's opinion is worth a lot.

My method of teaching is simple. I have been blessed by God to disciple ex-JW's in a support group setting since 1988 and only ending a few years ago because my ministry obligations became so time consuming. In that group they could see me and see my expression and no one was ever offended at the way I taught. I always used diagrams and people were always telling me that they saw God's love in me and my way of teaching opened their eyes to God's word. If you would see me as a sister in Christ who loves Jesus with my whole heart, perhaps you would not be so easily offended. If it is possible that you have been hurt by an egalitarian brother or sister in Christ who perhaps spoke harshly to you in the past, then I am sorry that you have been disrespected. No matter how much we disagree, some day we will spend eternity in heaven together and my goal is always to be respectful to those are bonded together with me in Christ.

One thing that I know for sure is that ulterior motives can be known to no one but the person themselves and God who knows the heart. That is why I do not judge you. I can have compassion on you as my sister.

I trust that your heart will be open in the future and when that happens that you will know that you have not been attacked for your belief but have only been answered with the scripture.

Blessings!

Cheryl

[inhistime]

Actually, this is the first intelligent dicussion of the matter I have come across. I am very pleased with what I am reading here! Inhistime has the most valid view, in my estimation. She has said exactly what I have come to believe in a very intelligent and coherent way.

God bless you! ( I am sure he does!)

Floatingaxe,

Many hugs!

Cheryl

[inhistime]

OOOPs,

Cheryl is trying to show HER opinion, not reveal God's word on the matter. At least, that is how I have received it. And whether or not she intends, I have found her "let us see what..." approach patronising, and it has not only been used to me but is rather a general approach on her part towards all protagonsists. Fair enough, I did say that I was offering a very non PC response and was ready to have my head bitten off for same. Nevertheless, that is my honest opinion - right or wrong.

And no, in a word, I am not "understanding what she is trying to show me". All I am understanding is a woman who has an ulterior motive which is to attempt to prove a personal preconception through distorting the plain counsel of Scripture.

And now I shall fully retire even from debating the debate.

Ruth

Ruth, you have wrongfully judged Cheryl's heart. She has no "ulterior motive" of attempting to prove a personal preconception by deliberately distorting the plain counsel of Scripture. Cheryl has come to her conclusions by years of thoroughly researching Scripture. She speaks precept upon precept.

And for the little that it is worth, Cheryl has many Godly men who fully support her work, including myself.

This is what happens when our inner frustrations cause us to attack the person instead of carefully and diligently discussing the Scriptures with Christian charity.

OopsMartin,

Thank you for standing up for me! One day we will give an account before God for how we have served him. It is at that time that our motives will be observed by all. Right now we are allowed to judge truth from error, but motives are not to be judged before the time.

I have appreciated all the men who have stood behind me and supported me. The very first man who contacted me after my DVD set was produced was a Baptist Pastor who said that the DVDs caused him to discard his faulty traditions. Praise God!!! It is for these wonderful testimonies that I can give all the glory to God and it allows me to endure all the attacks on my character and my motives. 2 Timothy 3:12 says "Indeed, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted." I always assumed that this would come from the world. Sadly that isn't always true. But one day we will all be in heaven in harmony, so I can rejoice even now.

Blessings,

Cheryl

[firehill]

inhistime:

Now I had asked you to do an exegesis of the passage to show that in context (from chapters 1 & 2) that Paul is stopping the teaching of godly Christian women teaching correct biblical doctrine to men. You did not do that. What you did was try to poke holes in my exegesis. I will answer that, but I will also ask you to do an exegesis of chapters 1 & 2 to show how godly teaching can be explained within the complete context..

Neo, I noticed that you didn't answer the challenge, but instead mentioned points that were made in, inhistime's, exegesis which is fine to bring up points you may have, but it is curios to say in the least that the challenge still hasn't been met. A request for an exegesis which demonstrates from the context that, Paul is stopping true teaching of all women to men should be able to be provided if in fact that is what Paul meant and I say this because if there is no contextual evidence to support the interpretatioin of 1 Tim 2 that you assign to it, Neo, then what is noted is that the passage of, 1 Tim 2:11-15, is then being ripped out of context which then is ofcourse not the way to handle proper biblical nor sound hermenutics.

I've other things to post when I get a chance, but just wanted to say a few words for now.

[firehill]

.

[OopsMartin]

.

Ummmm. did you notice that your post only contains a period. Were you going to add to it later, and just wanted to keep your spot in line. hehe

[firehill]

.

Ummmm. did you notice that your post only contains a period. Were you going to add to it later, and just wanted to keep your spot in line. hehe

Yes, I meant to put up this:

It would probably take me all day to give a complete response to everything in your posts, but I've tried to focus on some points that make your exegesis implausible (I'll let the lurkers in this discussion decide whether that's the case).

Suffice it to say, in the grammar of 2:12, didaskein has no object. The issue isn't whether what a woman is teaching is correct or false doctrine. You won't find any mention of a correct or false doctrine being taught by the woman in the immediate context. The real issue whether Paul permits any woman to teach a man.

You won't find any mention of a correct or false doctrine being taught by the woman in the immediate context. The real issue whether Paul permits any woman to teach a man.

!

You are right, in the passage, vv.11-15, there is NO mention of whether the woman is teaching false OR CORRECT doctrine. THEREFORE the door is shut on the implausibility of the exegesis that, inhistime provided since IN FACT it is therefore POSSIBLE that the woman of v.11 was teaching falsely since there is NO MENTION that she was teaching CORRECTLY!!! EVEN turning to the immediate context (chp 1 and chp 2) of the passage we can see that there is the mention of false doctrines (v.3), Timothy is command to stop certain people from teaching these false doctrines (v.3) kinds of false teachings, (myths and endless genealogies, v.4) meaningless talk, (v.6) ignorance, (v.7), ignorance again, blasphemy & unbelief (Paul speaking of himself as an example, v.12-14), the rejection of faith and good conscience (v.18), and anger or dispute (2:8) all over the place yet there is complete silence speaking to the issue of stopping the teaching of CORRECT doctrine, teachings! Further you also said:

NEO:

1. If the woman in 2:12 is one of the "certain persons" in 1:3, then Paul would not exhort her to continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

Part of Inhistime's response:

If Paul says that she needs to continue, then it is obvious that she is not one of the deceivers who has left the faith.

To the point! Which makes the next quote impossible to fathom:

Neo:

Further, if she is not a Christian (this may well be the case given 1:3-11), why would Paul say she will be protected through the Messiah?

That was an admission to the possiblity that the woman was teaching false doctrine!

Consequently, your contextual argument for claiming that the woman in 1 Timothy 2:12 is a false teacher breaks down. Your contextual argument is that "Paul is dealing with false deceived teachers who are teaching false doctrine" and you cite 1 Timothy 1:3,7 in support.

You're saying that Paul is stopping a woman from CORRECT teaching yet you cannot provide that context whereas a context of false teaching is obvious in chp 1&2 under discussion. A case in point is below:

Neo:

I don't buy this distinction you are making between the deceived and deceivers. I know you cited a lot of verses to support the distinction, but it looks like confirmation bias to me.

inhistime:

If it was a bias, I would not have verses to support my view because biases are not support in context.

[firehill]

.

[inhistime]

You are right, in the passage, vv.11-15, there is NO mention of whether the woman is teaching false OR CORRECT doctrine. THEREFORE the door is shut on the implausibility of the exegesis that, inhistime provided since IN FACT it is therefore POSSIBLE that the woman of v.11 was teaching falsely since there is NO MENTION that she was teaching CORRECTLY!!!

Consequently, your contextual argument for claiming that the woman in 1 Timothy 2:12 is a false teacher breaks down. Your contextual argument is that "Paul is dealing with false deceived teachers who are teaching false doctrine" and you cite 1 Timothy 1:3,7 in support.

You're saying that Paul is stopping a woman from CORRECT teaching yet you cannot provide that context whereas a context of false teaching is obvious in chp 1&2 under discussion. A case in point is below:

Neo:

I don't buy this distinction you are making between the deceived and deceivers. I know you cited a lot of verses to support the distinction, but it looks like confirmation bias to me.

inhistime:

If it was a bias, I would not have verses to support my view because biases are not supported in context.

Oh man! Firehill, I think in some quarters they would call this a "slam dunk". You are some logical kind of gal!

Edited July 4, 2007 by inhistime

[firehill]

I don't often necro old posts, but for an explanation of why women are not to teach or exercise authority over men:

http://www.worthyboards.com/index.php?s=&a...st&p=865268

I went to that thread and found your paragraph below interesting.

Let me just add here that even if we don't understand Paul's appeal to Genesis, we can still conclude that Paul was proscribing women from teaching and exercising authority over men on the basis of 1 Tim 2:12. I'm taking Paul at his word and using a little abductive reasoning to discover why Paul appealed to Genesis. What I'm saying is, if you isolated Genesis from 1 Timothy, you might not come up the proscription Paul did in 1 Tim 2:12 just by exegeting Genesis 2.

We can understand Paul's appeal to Genesis in 1 Tim 2. Eve was deceived and Adam was not. (there's a little more to it though...) But on this note, so since Eve didn't teach (Paul is prohibiting a woman who is deceived from teaching) Adam when she gave some of the fruit to him because he wasn't deceived and in rebellion full well knew what he was doing what interpretative connection are you trying to make then?