1 Timothy 2:15

[firehill]

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!

I gotta tell ya, I've put on my thinking cap here!

[firehill]

inhistime:

3. Why would God have put this prohibition in amongst the stopping of deceived teachers? Did God not know the future and know that many godly people could see this as a prohibition of false teachers and not a prohibition of godly teachers?

4. Why would God have placed a question about women's salvation in the passage when it has nothing whatsoever to do with what Paul is talking about? When is women's salvation ever questioned in scripture?

5. Why would we ignore the inspired grammar in verse 15 and correct God's word by making it say "women" when the plural for women is not even in the Greek? Can we add to God's word and be guiltless or should we diligently try to find out what the Holy Spirit is saying?

7. Why is tradition held over the inerrancy of God's inspired words and his inspired grammar?

Does anyone have the answers to these questions?

inhistime:

We are all responsible for testing a person's teaching by scripture. No one has an authority to tell us what scripture says without us testing it for ourselves. No man has an authority to teach scripture without it being tested. Even Paul said that he was to be tested by the scriptures that the early church had which were the Old Testament. If even Paul said that he should be checked out by scripture then no man has an authority to teach scripture without us testing him. There is no such thing as man having authority with God's word. It simply is not in scripture. That is tradition that somehow a man has an authority that if he interprets scripture we are to listen and just believe. We are to test all things and hold fast to what is good. It matters not who is doing the teaching. Men and women are to be tested.

Oopsmartin:When the Word is handled incorrectly it condemns persons instead of sin.

Such thinking as you have displayed is why we have Christians calling other Christian foul names, heretics, and questioning their commitment to Christ. Just because one loves God doesn't make them perfect like God. Everyone is at different stages in growth and maturity. And there are wolves out there deceiving people and then the deceived turn around and try to spread the deceptions. I've seen it often, even on Christian forums.

!

Mind boggling, sad, but true.

oopsmartin:

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...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.

I was wondering the same thing about the comparison. This Buddhidm teaching is pagan. *shrieks*

[firehill]

I had to edit my post #243 so incase the editing part was missed I'm posting it here.

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 is an admission to the CONTEXTUAL possiblity that the woman was teaching falsely! Though your questioning whether or not she was a christian has already been contested.

[OopsMartin]

oopsmartin:

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...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.

I was wondering the same thing about the comparison. This Buddhidm teaching is pagan. *shrieks*

It is part of the ying/yang teachings I believe. One is the outer realm and the other the inner. One is initiator, one is receptor. Some of the modern Christian cultic groups teach the same things by saying that men are "lords of the earth", while women are "mistresses of their domains". One obvious problem with these teachings is that everything belongs to the "lords" and women and wives are just their guests so to speak. This is also very much like the Mormon teachings regarding men and women. In Mormonism men eventually will have their own worlds - "lords of the earth". Their wives are their wombs to populate their worlds. Interesting, there is also a semipopular Patriarchal group, the Bayley Brothers, that have taught on their blog that wives wombs belong to their husbands.

IMO it is all carnal thinking born of the disobedience of Adam. Demons must so delight in Christians being deceived by these pagan thoughts.

[firehill]

Ya know what I've really liked about this thread? It stayed on course for the most part and didn't go in 100 different directions. The boat stayed on it's course.

[firehill]

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.

?

[OopsMartin]

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.

?

Yes, one wonders where logic goes in statements like these. blink.gif

If that were true, and I truly thank God that it isn't, then that would mean that all women over approx. 13 years of age could not instruct a man over 13 years of age in ANYthing regardless if what she were to say was truth or not. Talk about illogical ideas. Of course then it would also mean that any female child under the age of 13 would be permitted to teach a man or woman anything regardless if it were truth or not. And then one must ask where did Paul get such a concept when it is nowhere else in Scripture and certainly Paul being schooled extensively in the Torah would know that many OT women strongly violated such a concept many times.

And then how does such a global cutting off of women's minds and tongues read into the 15th verse? Reminds me of my great grandmothers stories where children were actually told in certain upper class homes that they were not to speak unless spoken to.

I was in a Christian Commune about 36 years ago that took this teaching to it's natural end. It does tend to open the minds of those willing to see, when you follow a teaching precisely as you believe it to say and make no acceptions where you do not see them stated. Those men who think they gain much privilege by such doctrines (of course such wouldn't openly acknowledge it) are the biggest losers of all.

Of course the commune allowed women to teach other women, but only what men told them they could teach. Parrots. That's what they unwillingly became. That's all they were allowed to become. Thinking was reserved for the men. And yes, the concept that women were more easily deceived than men was one of the ideas used to consign women into this mold.

The point God was trying to get across to Adam was that aloneness didn't have anything to do with lots of warm bodies around. It had everything to do with another human like himself in intellectual, mental, emotional capacities yet complementary in physical differences. If a man isn't willing to learn from a woman and hear the wisdom that God has given these beautiful sharers of humanities unique traits, then believe me a dog is sufficient for company.

Please forgive my bluntness today.

I hope Cheryl comes around and enlightens us with her incredible patient responses.

[inhistime]

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.

?

Yes, one wonders where logic goes in statements like these. blink.gif

If that were true, and I truly thank God that it isn't, then that would mean that all women over approx. 13 years of age could not instruct a man over 13 years of age in ANYthing regardless if what she were to say was truth or not. Talk about illogical ideas. Of course then it would also mean that any female child under the age of 13 would be permitted to teach a man or woman anything regardless if it were truth or not. And then one must ask where did Paul get such a concept when it is nowhere else in Scripture and certainly Paul being schooled extensively in the Torah would know that many OT women strongly violated such a concept many times.

And then how does such a global cutting off of women's minds and tongues read into the 15th verse? Reminds me of my great grandmothers stories where children were actually told in certain upper class homes that they were not to speak unless spoken to.

I was in a Christian Commune about 36 years ago that took this teaching to it's natural end. It does tend to open the minds of those willing to see, when you follow a teaching precisely as you believe it to say and make no acceptions where you do not see them stated. Those men who think they gain much privilege by such doctrines (of course such wouldn't openly acknowledge it) are the biggest losers of all.

Of course the commune allowed women to teach other women, but only what men told them they could teach. Parrots. That's what they unwillingly became. That's all they were allowed to become. Thinking was reserved for the men. And yes, the concept that women were more easily deceived than men was one of the ideas used to consign women into this mold.

The point God was trying to get across to Adam was that aloneness didn't have anything to do with lots of warm bodies around. It had everything to do with another human like himself in intellectual, mental, emotional capacities yet complementary in physical differences. If a man isn't willing to learn from a woman and hear the wisdom that God has given these beautiful sharers of humanities unique traits, then believe me a dog is sufficient for company.

Please forgive my bluntness today.

I hope Cheryl comes around and enlightens us with her incredible patient responses.

Very good and insightful comments, OopsMartin!

I have started my own thread on whether an egalitarian can be saved. http://www.worthyboards.com/index.php?showtopic=64903

I wished I had more time to spend on these boards!

[matthew4:4]

Hmm, I have a question but I don't want to start any arguments or anything but its an important question which I would like to hear some other opinions on. I have my own ideas about it but it never hurts to remain open to things. So, do this passage and the one in corinthians show us that woman should not have the role of being pastors? Again, lets have a gentle discussion and not look at this biasedly but use the scripture for its complete truth. Thanks for your replys. Your brother in Christ, matthew

[inhistime]

Hmm, I have a question but I don't want to start any arguments or anything but its an important question which I would like to hear some other opinions on. I have my own ideas about it but it never hurts to remain open to things. So, do this passage and the one in corinthians show us that woman should not have the role of being pastors? Again, lets have a gentle discussion and not look at this biasedly but use the scripture for its complete truth. Thanks for your replys. Your brother in Christ, matthew

No there is nothing in the passages that says that a woman is forbidden from being a pastor. The context of 1 Timothy 1 & 2 is deception and therefore cannot be the stopping of the teaching of correct biblical doctrine by women. The context of 1 Corinthians is answering the questions and divisions of the Corinthians. In chapter 14 there is a reference to "the law" which is not found in scripture. The only "law" that was in operation at the time of the writing was in the Jewish oral law. The quote then is from the Corinthians who wanted to stop women from learning scripture and stop them from speaking forth the word of God. In 1 Cor. 14: 36 Paul takes a position contrary to the two previous verses and contradicts the claim. Is there anything in scripture that says that a woman is forbidden from being a Pastor? No. For one to take this position means that one must read into scripture something that is not stated. Can a gentile be a Pastor? We could read into scripture that all the disciples were Jews, and Jesus appointed only Jews in position of leadership. But there is nothing that says that a gentile cannot be a Pastor. We need to not go beyond what is written.