Would you be more likely to join…

Adventist Heretic said:

that assumes the command was a "universal" rule and not a "local" issue.

Click to expand...

Any ole' port in a storm. . .

Paul grounds his teaching in the creation order, (2 Ti 2:13-14) which is the same for all Christianity.

jas3 said:

Through a basic knowledge of gendered languages, mainly Latin and Greek. I really don't mean to be condescending, and I know it sounds like I do, but this whole controversy just smacks of ignorance of languages other than English, the same as the "petra/Petros" argument about Matthew 16:18. The word for "tablet" is feminine in Latin, but we don't refer to a tablet in English as "her."

Words that are closely related to people, e.g. occupations, do have correspondence between grammatical gender and personal gender: a servus is a slave, and can refer to either a slave in the general sense or to a male slave specifically; a serva is always a female slave. Words that are not closely related to people, like malleus, hammer, can be any grammatical gender, without affecting how we refer to them in English. The word for "spirit" falls into this latter category linguistically, even though in the unique case of God, the Holy Spirit is a person.

Click to expand...

but it seems you are breaking your own rule. If words are associated with the person and they are feminine or masculine, the holy spirit must be feminine because the word is feminine.

It is very Biblical,

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Clare73 said:

Any ole' port in a storm. . .

Paul grounds his teaching in the creation order, (2 Ti 2:13-14) which is the same for all Christianity.

Click to expand...

that text dose not say that

2 Timothy 2:13-14 NIV​

KJVNIVNLTNKJVESV
if we are faithless, he remains faithful, for he cannot disown himself. Keep reminding God’s people of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen.

Adventist Heretic said:

that text dose not say that

2 Timothy 2:13-14 NIV​

KJVNIVNLTNKJVESV
if we are faithless, he remains faithful, for he cannot disown himself. Keep reminding God’s people of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen.

Click to expand...

You're right!

Paul grounds his teaching in the creation order: 1 Ti 2:12-14.

Adventist Heretic said:

but it seems you are breaking your own rule. If words are associated with the person and they are feminine or masculine,
the holy spirit must be feminine because the word is feminine.

Click to expand...

Pneuma (spirit) is neuter, with a masculine pronoun (he--Jn 16:13-14), against all the rules of grammar, denoting that he is a person.

Clare73 said:

Any ole' port in a storm. . .

Paul grounds his teaching in the creation order, (2 Ti 2:13-14) which is the same for all Christianity.

Click to expand...

While I agree with you that paul ultimately has the creation order in mind, but women denial of authority is based on the Fall and the curse and it contradict the new covenat teaching, That Is Why it is LOCAL, based on him not want the church to be associated with temple prostitution. Any women in Ephesus in a religious context would have been seen as a prostitute. That would be enough for Paul to say shut up and sit down there is something bigger here. But it was not universal it is not the 11th commandment.

Paul's New Covenat teaching is that the curse has been removed (Gal 3:13) and we are all equal under Christ(Gal3:28), We are new Creations (2Cor 5:17) that the holy spirit is given to ALL believers and ALL believers are given Gifts (Eph. 4:11-16). Women are included in ALL. so all of the gifts are manifested to All Believers that includes women. That is the theological basis of Women in ministry and pastor and why this is a LOCAL situation.

1 Timothy 2:11-14
King James Version​

11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Love365 said:

Some countries use the death penalty for lesser crimes.

Do you want to abolish the death penalty in those cases?

Click to expand...

you will need to clarify, I am not familiar with the specific you are talking about.

Adventist Heretic said:

While I agree with you that paul ultimately has the creation order in mind, but women denial of authority is based on the Fall and the curse and it contradict the new covenat teaching, That Is Why it is LOCAL, based on him not want the church to be associated with temple prostitution.

Click to expand...

That's a "reach"! . . .for the sake of feminism?

"In all the congregations of the saints (from Ephesus to Rome), women should remain silent in the churches." (1 Co 14:33)

Adventist Heretic said:

but it seems you are breaking your own rule. If words are associated with the person and they are feminine or masculine, the holy spirit must be feminine because the word is feminine.

Click to expand...

Already addressed in my reply you quoted:

jas3 said:

The word for "spirit" falls into this latter category linguistically, even though in the unique case of God, the Holy Spirit is a person.

Click to expand...

Clare73 said:

That's a "reach"! . . .for the sake of feminism?

Click to expand...

No it's not, I've written three major papers on the subject one from the Jewish side one from the gentile side and one from the theological side. Feminism has its own issues. And it's on agenda that has nothing to do with Christianity.

What this is about is about representing God properly and what you're saying is that God wants to oppress women, and that he does not have their well-being in mind. You get to be nothing more than whatever we decide you are. According to that view, you can never have a woman be a business leader or a politician or a teacher or anything other than a stay-at-home wife. Which is exactly the role they had in the ancient Roman empire. That's all they could become. That has never been what God wanted for women.

Now the radical feminists have come along and said yeah we want to throw off the shackles of any kind of morality and say we want to go back to the model of the temple prostitutes. That's the basis of third wave feminism. Second place feminism was about everybody following the law and everybody being equal and becoming all they were meant to be. That car gets back to what God's original plan was.

Scripture tells us that men do not have absolute power. "If you do not obey my laws a woman will rule it over you". Notice the the role is we follow God first then we follow men. So it's always been about following God.

In the New covenant the laws placed upon the heart of the believer, and you will walk in his ways and you will do them. There was no need for male dominance in that situation all people must be subject to Christ in this matter and the laws of God. Gender is not even considered in this matter. So it is when God's holy spirit is placed inside of us that he decides by whatever act of his will to part out the gifts to whoever he decides. And that includes women. Sorry there's no other way around it.

That is the reason why it can only be circumstantial. Because to do otherwise is to misrepresent who God is and his character.

You are literally advocating for the robbing of an entire population group of the work of Christ and the benefits of salvation of the work of the Lord Jesus. Sorry I can't go along with that.

Clare73 said:

"In all the congregations of the saints (from Ephesus to Rome), women should remain silent in the churches." (1 Co 14:33)

Click to expand...

This is talking about speaking in tounges.

Adventist Heretic said:

No it's not, I've written three major papers on the subject one from the Jewish side one from the gentile side and one from the theological side. Feminism has its own issues. And it's on agenda that has nothing to do with Christianity.

What this is about is about representing God properly and what you're saying is that God wants to oppress women, and that he does not have their well-being in mind. You get to be nothing more than whatever we decide you are. According to that view, you can never have a woman be a business leader or a politician or a teacher or anything other than a stay-at-home wife. Which is exactly the role they had in the ancient Roman empire. That's all they could become. That has never been what God wanted for women.

Now the radical feminists have come along and said yeah we want to throw off the shackles of any kind of morality and say we want to go back to the model of the temple prostitutes. That's the basis of third wave feminism. Second place feminism was about everybody following the law and everybody being equal and becoming all they were meant to be. That car gets back to what God's original plan was.

Scripture tells us that men do not have absolute power. "If you do not obey my laws a woman will rule it over you". Notice the the role is we follow God first then we follow men. So it's always been about following God.

In the New covenant the laws placed upon the heart of the believer, and you will walk in his ways and you will do them. There was no need for male dominance in that situation all people must be subject to Christ in this matter and the laws of God. Gender is not even considered in this matter. So it is when God's holy spirit is placed inside of us that he decides by whatever act of his will to part out the gifts to whoever he decides. And that includes women. Sorry there's no other way around it.

That is the reason why it can only be circumstantial. Because to do otherwise is to misrepresent who God is and his character.

Click to expand...

You are literally advocating for the robbing of an entire population group of the work of Christ

Click to expand...

Take it up with God's apostle Paul regarding the assembly: which proscription he grounds in God's creation order.

"I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. She must be silent." (1 Tim 2:12-14).

Adventist Heretic said:

and the benefits of salvation of the work of the Lord Jesus. Sorry I can't go along with that.
This is talking about speaking in tounges.

Click to expand...

Your choice. . .

God's apostle excludes all speaking in the assembly by women, basing it in God's creation order (1 Tim 2:13-14).

Clare73 said:

Take it up with God's apostle Paul regarding the assembly: which proscription he grounds in God's creation order.

"I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. She must be silent." (1 Tim 2:12-14).

Your choice. . .

God's apostle excludes all speaking in the assembly by women, basing it in God's creation order (1 Tim 2:13-14).

Click to expand...

thank you for taking it out of context. Context is King in interpretation.

Adventist Heretic said:

thank you for taking it out of context. Context is King in interpretation.

Click to expand...

Assertion without Biblical demonstration is assertion without Biblical merit.

Clare73 said:

Assertion without Biblical demonstration is assertion without Biblical merit.

Click to expand...

Nice little quote, but I have already demonstrated an alternative interpretation, Paul was addressing the misrepresentation of God by women in Ephesus due to the association with Temple Prostitution.

Adventist Heretic said:

Nice little quote, but I have already demonstrated an alternative interpretation, Paul was addressing the misrepresentation of God by women in Ephesus due to the association with Temple Prostitution.

Click to expand...

You have not provided a Biblical demonstration of your assertion, only your conjecture thereof.

Clare73 said:

You have not provided a Biblical demonstration of your assertion, only your conjecture thereof.

Click to expand...

I provided a strong theological framework to show that Paul's statements are out of the norm for the New Covenant. Mainly they were born again, we are New creations, former things have passed away, and the curse has been removed. The Holy Spirit has been poured out in our hearts, we can walk in his ways, and he gives us gifts and blessings, by the Spirit, according to his will. He gives gifts to whomever HE decides.

Paul's Statements concerning women not teaching, not speaking, and not having authority, have to be put in the context of his theology, and the context of the culture of the times.

I have demonstrated conclusively that your view ignores all that information. It ignores all the theology and simply makes the text into an arbitrary decision that goes against the known facts.


I think I've made that case pretty strongly. You cannot say there is no other way to look at that anymore. So you don't like it, so you don't agree with it. But you cannot say it is not a valid argument. It isn't conjecture, it's proper hermeneutics textual analysis, and cultural interpretation. and application

In order to take your view, you have to ignore all that. You have to misrepresent God. Deny the spiritual gifts and you have to rob women and hurt the body of Christ.

Adventist Heretic said:

I provided a strong theological framework

Click to expand...

Framework is subjective.
Please present a Biblical demonstration of your assertion.

Clare73 said:

Framework is subjective.
Please present a Biblical demonstration of your assertion.

Click to expand...

Interpretation & application is subjective. That is what you have an interpretation and & application of the text. I disagree with you based on other passages in scripture.

you need to clarify what you mean here. I have given you the biblical reference. so what do you want? more text? do want examples of this? I have shown you that there is

Adventist Heretic said:

Interpretation & application is subjective. That is what you have an interpretation and & application of the text. I disagree with you based on other passages in scripture.

you need to clarify what you mean here. I have given you the biblical reference. so what do you want? more text? do want examples of this? I have shown you that there is

Click to expand...

Review post #92.