does the bible forbid men to do things that women can do?

[Sammy-San]

similar to how women pastors and women mentoring men is unbibical?

 

[Bladerunner]

similar to how women pastors and women mentoring men is unbibical?

The church(brick and mortar) is the only place where this happens. Yet, like children when they are told they cannot do something, the feminine movement is bound and determined to show GOD that He is not in control. I would hate to be there when the defecation hits the rotary oscillator.

Blade

 

[Brightmoon]

Lol sorry this reminds of Monty pythons lumberjack song .

 

[Sammy-San]

The church(brick and mortar) is the only place where this happens. Yet, like children when they are told they cannot do something, the feminine movement is bound and determined to show GOD that He is not in control. I would hate to be there when the defecation hits the rotary oscillator.

Blade

men mentoring women is a sin.

 

[Sketcher]

men mentoring women is a sin.

Where in Scripture do you read that?

 

[PloverWing]

men mentoring women is a sin.

Jesus taught Mary of Bethany, who was specifically encouraged to sit at his feet. Surely that wasn't a sin.

 

[truthisfreedom2019]

King Lemuel's mother's wisdom was above much men's wisdom. She counseled her son in wisdom. The 31st chapter of Proverbs. She believed that it was possible for a woman to have wisdom and teach it.31:26. Wisdom comes from God. If a woman has God she has Wisdom. If she speaks not her own words but God's words. The same as it is with a man. It was not Jesus that said that a woman should remain silent and if she was going to learn anything she should learn at home. 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. With that teaching, one would have to feel sorry for the woman with the unbelieving husband at home.

 

[Lord Give Me A Sign]

I have wondered about this recently in regards to Joyce Meyer

 

[Contenders Edge]

similar to how women pastors and women mentoring men is unbibical?

There is one thing that comes to mind: Men are forbidden by God to act and dress like women, just as women are forbidden to act and dress like men. (Deut. 22:5) Other than that, I do not know. What other things did you have in mind concerning what men are not allowed to do in comparison to women?

As to the passage of scripture that most claim to forbid women from holding authority over a man in a fellowship, notice that the Apostle Paul said, “I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man..” (1 Tim. 2:12) Contextually speaking, he is speaking according to his own personal judgment and not as a direct command from the Lord, as he has done on other occasions. (1 Cor. 7:6, 12)

But just because this may not appear to be a direct prohibition against women holding authority over a man in a church, the reasoning behind the Apostle’s judgment on the matter should not be disregarded:



“…and Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” (1 Tim. 2:14)




That the thinking processes of women are different from that of men is undeniable. Because of this, there must have been something about women Paul observed that he did not see in men which made him uncomfortable with allowing a woman to assume a position of authority over men.

But as for those women who completely disregard this scripture, one cannot help but wonder how much of the other scriptures they are either disregarding or twisting to their own ends.

But nonetheless, those who insist that 1 Timothy 2:12 expressly forbids women to be Pastors and teachers over men will find themselves hard-pressed to make that case from the full context of that passage. There are women who will point that out and in that case, they would be right.

But despite Paul’s judgment on the matter, he commended Aquila and Priscilla for hosting a fellowship in their home, (1 Cor. 16:19) that passage suggesting the possibility of Priscilla co-reigning over that fellowship with her husband Aquila.

Nevertheless, hands dare not be laid suddenly on anyone for a leadership position in a church, especially women, but even if women are not being chosen for positions of authority within their respective fellowships, that does not mean that there are not other opportunities available to faithfully serve Christ in the manner in which He has called each and every one of them. As for those women who are already serving in a Pastoral role, let them remain where they are until they sense the Holy Spirit telling them otherwise. I am only concerned with what doctrine they preach.

 

[The Righterzpen]

King Lemuel's mother's wisdom was above much men's wisdom. She counseled her son in wisdom. The 31st chapter of Proverbs. She believed that it was possible for a woman to have wisdom and teach it.31:26. Wisdom comes from God. If a woman has God she has Wisdom. If she speaks not her own words but God's words. The same as it is with a man. It was not Jesus that said that a woman should remain silent and if she was going to learn anything she should learn at home. 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. With that teaching, one would have to feel sorry for the woman with the unbelieving husband at home.

I was with you till you got to the conventional interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. I think that passage is mistranslated and misinterpreted.

The word "silent" in that passage comes from a root that implies attention to a speaker or event and this is the nature of the "silence". It's also translated "to keep secret".

Next part of the verse: "not permitted to speak but be in submission". Well, connected to listening attentively they aren't jabbering contemptuously, but are submitting as also the law says; which implies submission to God.

But of anyone if they desire to learn; at home of their own husbands having preferred position to petition from; they should ask. This "preferred position to petition from" is a word most commonly used in context of Jesus petitioning the Father for something. He had a place of preferred position.

For it is dishonoring for a wife to be jabbering contemptuously in the congregation. Which other places speak of "jabbering contemptuously" is dishonoring to men to behave that way too.

Now the little phrase "such as stated in the law". Since the law forbids marriage partners from being unequally yoked, this is not speaking of someone contending with an unbelieving spouse. Nor is it speaking of single women, who don't have a husband to ask.

So that passage is not saying women should never ask questions or never speak. They are to do so submissively to God; just as men are to.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Here are some more examples of verses that need some wisdom (and searching) to understand within the context of the entity of Scripture.

There is one thing that comes to mind: Men are forbidden by God to act and dress like women, just as women are forbidden to act and dress like men. (Deut. 22:5) Other than that, I do not know. What other things did you have in mind concerning what men are not allowed to do in comparison to women?

This passage in Deuteronomy isn't talking about clothing per say. They're people that say "women shouldn't wear pants" because that's "men's clothing".

Yet if you want to define women's clothing as something that's open at the bottom; technically you could argue that Jesus wore a dress. Garments for men and women in the ancient world were pretty much made very similarly. This is true of most "hunter / gatherer", "nomadic", "newly agrarian / semi agrarian" cultures.

Now of course this doesn't account for cultural variations like women wearing Salwar Kermess and men wearing kilts. Those types of things are rooted in traditions that go back centuries. But that isn't what the passage is talking about either.

This passage in Deuteronomy is actually talking about battle armaments. A women is not to put on (battle armaments) above and beyond (in front of) that of men.

Now it's not saying, women can't fight in wars. Women have been active combatants in wars ever since humanity has been fighting them. They are not to play a role beyond that which a male combatant would play though.

Contextually this portion of this verse is talking about using women as human shields. Historically, most standing armies prior to WWI; had female "camp followers" (wives and families of soldiers) some of whom were actually "in the army" themselves.

This goes all the way back to Roman times. Rome had the first standing army in western civilization and in places where legions were in wilderness outposts; soldiers' families went with them. The Romans actually had women in auxiliary forces to defend the camp while the soldiers were off in battle. They actually trained and provided weapons for these auxiliary forces that were smaller to those of the army and lighter for women to use.

Now the next part of this verse; men aren't to put on women's garments. If taken in the context of combat (seeing how the beginning of this verse is talking about warfare) contextually means men aren't to dress as women either as a means of evading combat, or as a means of trying to deceive the enemy.

As to the passage of scripture that most claim to forbid women from holding authority over a man in a fellowship, notice that the Apostle Paul said, “I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man..” (1 Tim. 2:12) Contextually speaking, he is speaking according to his own personal judgment and not as a direct command from the Lord, as he has done on other occasions. (1 Cor. 7:6, 12)

Now this verse too requires some contextual understanding as to how the form of linguistic expression is used. The Greek in that passage is a type of couplet form. Which means that the verse about women "teaching" or "authority" over men is connected to the following passage about Adam and Eve.

Now looking at what the context of the verses about Adam and Eve are saying; give us some context as to what the prior verses are saying. The verses about Adam and Eve talk about Adam being created first and Eve being deceived; but Adam was not, so therefore his accountability to God was greater than Eve's because he didn't eat the fruit because of some "magical" belief that it would make him wise.

So back up to the verses in front of that. Women aren't to teach that they are the authors of man - because Adam was created first.... And historically speaking, there was a goddess cult that taught that.

That the thinking processes of women are different from that of men is undeniable. Because of this, there must have been something about women Paul observed that he did not see in men which made him uncomfortable with allowing a woman to assume a position of authority over men.

But as for those women who completely disregard this scripture, one cannot help but wonder how much of the other scriptures they are either disregarding or twisting to their own ends.

Now what Paul probably saw besides the obvious differences between how men and women think / act / what they are capable of doing; was the variant of the shift in society by the time you get to the organization of society in the ancient world; moved away from matriarchy more toward patriarchy. Obviously with these goddess cults, there was matriarchal elements still within society.

Now here's where it get's interesting; back up to the Old Testament. We have several examples of female leaders. We have Deborah the judge, Esther, Miriam, and various women who are named and actually sanctioned as leaders by God. (Micah 6:4)

Now contextually if we understand this in light of ancient Israel being a nomadic, (probably) quasi-matriarchal society; we can better understand the leadership role Miriam probably held. She would have been akin to what Native Americans would call a "clan mother". This is a high ranking female leader who's well respected in the community as a "wise mother figure". This also was likely the context of Deborah being a judge and that sort of thing. Even today "queen" leaders of nations are respected, especially if they are good leaders. (Look at Princess Dianna. She wielded a lot of power as a leader. The populous looked up to her.)

But nonetheless, those who insist that 1 Timothy 2:12 expressly forbids women to be Pastors and teachers over men will find themselves hard-pressed to make that case from the full context of that passage. There are women who will point that out and in that case, they would be right.

But despite Paul’s judgment on the matter, he commended Aquila and Priscilla for hosting a fellowship in their home, (1 Cor. 16:19) that passage suggesting the possibility of Priscilla co-reigning over that fellowship with her husband Aquila.

And here being another example of the female leader. Also Timothy's mother and grandmother, Dorcas. Phoebe was a deaconess. And there's a very interesting passage; Romans 16:7 which names "Junia" as "note worthy among the apostles". Now what does that mean? Was she someone the apostles noted, or was she noteworthy as an apostle? The linguistic Greek jury has been out on that one a while!

Nevertheless, hands dare not be laid suddenly on anyone for a leadership position in a church, especially women, but even if women are not being chosen for positions of authority within their respective fellowships, that does not mean that there are not other opportunities available to faithfully serve Christ in the manner in which He has called each and every one of them. As for those women who are already serving in a Pastoral role, let them remain where they are until they sense the Holy Spirit telling them otherwise. I am only concerned with what doctrine they preach.

And so the practical aspect of all of this?

So if we take the whole of Scripture into context: then yes, we see female leaders in both ancient israel and the church.

 

[Sammy-San]

Here are some more examples of verses that need some wisdom (and searching) to understand within the context of the entity of Scripture.



This passage in Deuteronomy isn't talking about clothing per say. They're people that say "women shouldn't wear pants" because that's "men's clothing".

Yet if you want to define women's clothing as something that's open at the bottom; technically you could argue that Jesus wore a dress. Garments for men and women in the ancient world were pretty much made very similarly. This is true of most "hunter / gatherer", "nomadic", "newly agrarian / semi agrarian" cultures.

Now of course this doesn't account for cultural variations like women wearing Salwar Kermess and men wearing kilts. Those types of things are rooted in traditions that go back centuries. But that isn't what the passage is talking about either.

This passage in Deuteronomy is actually talking about battle armaments. A women is not to put on (battle armaments) above and beyond (in front of) that of men.

Now it's not saying, women can't fight in wars. Women have been active combatants in wars ever since humanity has been fighting them. They are not to play a role beyond that which a male combatant would play though.

Contextually this portion of this verse is talking about using women as human shields. Historically, most standing armies prior to WWI; had female "camp followers" (wives and families of soldiers) some of whom were actually "in the army" themselves.

This goes all the way back to Roman times. Rome had the first standing army in western civilization and in places where legions were in wilderness outposts; soldiers' families went with them. The Romans actually had women in auxiliary forces to defend the camp while the soldiers were off in battle. They actually trained and provided weapons for these auxiliary forces that were smaller to those of the army and lighter for women to use.

Now the next part of this verse; men aren't to put on women's garments. If taken in the context of combat (seeing how the beginning of this verse is talking about warfare) contextually means men aren't to dress as women either as a means of evading combat, or as a means of trying to deceive the enemy.



Now this verse too requires some contextual understanding as to how the form of linguistic expression is used. The Greek in that passage is a type of couplet form. Which means that the verse about women "teaching" or "authority" over men is connected to the following passage about Adam and Eve.

Now looking at what the context of the verses about Adam and Eve are saying; give us some context as to what the prior verses are saying. The verses about Adam and Eve talk about Adam being created first and Eve being deceived; but Adam was not, so therefore his accountability to God was greater than Eve's because he didn't eat the fruit because of some "magical" belief that it would make him wise.

So back up to the verses in front of that. Women aren't to teach that they are the authors of man - because Adam was created first.... And historically speaking, there was a goddess cult that taught that.



Now what Paul probably saw besides the obvious differences between how men and women think / act / what they are capable of doing; was the variant of the shift in society by the time you get to the organization of society in the ancient world; moved away from matriarchy more toward patriarchy. Obviously with these goddess cults, there was matriarchal elements still within society.

Now here's where it get's interesting; back up to the Old Testament. We have several examples of female leaders. We have Deborah the judge, Esther, Miriam, and various women who are named and actually sanctioned as leaders by God. (Micah 6:4)

Now contextually if we understand this in light of ancient Israel being a nomadic, (probably) quasi-matriarchal society; we can better understand the leadership role Miriam probably held. She would have been akin to what Native Americans would call a "clan mother". This is a high ranking female leader who's well respected in the community as a "wise mother figure". This also was likely the context of Deborah being a judge and that sort of thing. Even today "queen" leaders of nations are respected, especially if they are good leaders. (Look at Princess Dianna. She wielded a lot of power as a leader. The populous looked up to her.)



And here being another example of the female leader. Also Timothy's mother and grandmother, Dorcas. Phoebe was a deaconess. And there's a very interesting passage; Romans 16:7 which names "Junia" as "note worthy among the apostles". Now what does that mean? Was she someone the apostles noted, or was she noteworthy as an apostle? The linguistic Greek jury has been out on that one a while!



And so the practical aspect of all of this?

So if we take the whole of Scripture into context: then yes, we see female leaders in both ancient israel and the church.

There is a difference between males and females not wearing a top. That is why I dont believe that people should be offended that the Bible forbids women having spiritual authority over men.

 

[Brightmoon]

There is a difference between males and females not wearing a top. That is why I dont believe that people should be offended that the Bible forbids women having spiritual authority over men.

in Nyc it’s legal for women to go topless if she’s a performer. The tourists take photos with them Don’t make blanket statements especially about local customs. A lot of Asian and African women also go topless without feeling that this is unusual. Up until about the1920s men wore tank tops as part of their bathing suits

 

[The Righterzpen]

There is a difference between males and females not wearing a top. That is why I dont believe that people should be offended that the Bible forbids women having spiritual authority over men.

What's toplessness have to do with the subject of the thread?

 

[Bladerunner]

men mentoring women is a sin.

Hi Sammy-San......Where does the Bible say that. Men and Women are equal on this earth yet each has a different role in God's plan. The Church is the one place that difference shows up most dramatically. 1 Tim 2:9-15

Blade

 

[Contenders Edge]

Here are some more examples of verses that need some wisdom (and searching) to understand within the context of the entity of Scripture.



This passage in Deuteronomy isn't talking about clothing per say. They're people that say "women shouldn't wear pants" because that's "men's clothing".

Yet if you want to define women's clothing as something that's open at the bottom; technically you could argue that Jesus wore a dress. Garments for men and women in the ancient world were pretty much made very similarly. This is true of most "hunter / gatherer", "nomadic", "newly agrarian / semi agrarian" cultures.

Now of course this doesn't account for cultural variations like women wearing Salwar Kermess and men wearing kilts. Those types of things are rooted in traditions that go back centuries. But that isn't what the passage is talking about either.

This passage in Deuteronomy is actually talking about battle armaments. A women is not to put on (battle armaments) above and beyond (in front of) that of men.

Now it's not saying, women can't fight in wars. Women have been active combatants in wars ever since humanity has been fighting them. They are not to play a role beyond that which a male combatant would play though.

Contextually this portion of this verse is talking about using women as human shields. Historically, most standing armies prior to WWI; had female "camp followers" (wives and families of soldiers) some of whom were actually "in the army" themselves.

This goes all the way back to Roman times. Rome had the first standing army in western civilization and in places where legions were in wilderness outposts; soldiers' families went with them. The Romans actually had women in auxiliary forces to defend the camp while the soldiers were off in battle. They actually trained and provided weapons for these auxiliary forces that were smaller to those of the army and lighter for women to use.

Now the next part of this verse; men aren't to put on women's garments. If taken in the context of combat (seeing how the beginning of this verse is talking about warfare) contextually means men aren't to dress as women either as a means of evading combat, or as a means of trying to deceive the enemy.



Now this verse too requires some contextual understanding as to how the form of linguistic expression is used. The Greek in that passage is a type of couplet form. Which means that the verse about women "teaching" or "authority" over men is connected to the following passage about Adam and Eve.

Now looking at what the context of the verses about Adam and Eve are saying; give us some context as to what the prior verses are saying. The verses about Adam and Eve talk about Adam being created first and Eve being deceived; but Adam was not, so therefore his accountability to God was greater than Eve's because he didn't eat the fruit because of some "magical" belief that it would make him wise.

So back up to the verses in front of that. Women aren't to teach that they are the authors of man - because Adam was created first.... And historically speaking, there was a goddess cult that taught that.



Now what Paul probably saw besides the obvious differences between how men and women think / act / what they are capable of doing; was the variant of the shift in society by the time you get to the organization of society in the ancient world; moved away from matriarchy more toward patriarchy. Obviously with these goddess cults, there was matriarchal elements still within society.

Now here's where it get's interesting; back up to the Old Testament. We have several examples of female leaders. We have Deborah the judge, Esther, Miriam, and various women who are named and actually sanctioned as leaders by God. (Micah 6:4)

Now contextually if we understand this in light of ancient Israel being a nomadic, (probably) quasi-matriarchal society; we can better understand the leadership role Miriam probably held. She would have been akin to what Native Americans would call a "clan mother". This is a high ranking female leader who's well respected in the community as a "wise mother figure". This also was likely the context of Deborah being a judge and that sort of thing. Even today "queen" leaders of nations are respected, especially if they are good leaders. (Look at Princess Dianna. She wielded a lot of power as a leader. The populous looked up to her.)

And here being another example of the female leader. Also Timothy's mother and grandmother, Dorcas. Phoebe was a deaconess. And there's a very interesting passage; Romans 16:7 which names "Junia" as "note worthy among the apostles". Now what does that mean? Was she someone the apostles noted, or was she noteworthy as an apostle? The linguistic Greek jury has been out on that one a while!



And so the practical aspect of all of this?

So if we take the whole of Scripture into context: then yes, we see female leaders in both ancient israel and the church.

“This passage in Deuteronomy isn't talking about clothing per say. They're people that say ‘women shouldn't wear pants" because that's ‘men's clothing’…This passage in Deuteronomy is actually talking about battle armaments. A women is not to put on (battle armaments) above and beyond (in front of) that of men.”



This passages is clearly referring to clothing and there is no contextual evidence that this was speaking specifically about battle armaments. That in various cultures, in past times and now men and women have warn similar garments whether they be skirt/robe wear or pants, a distinction between the clothing that has pertained to women and that which has pertained to men has always remained.

It was no different in Hebrew culture. For example in Arab cultures, it could be argued that men and women both wear what we might describe as being skirt/robe like wear, but there still remains a distinction between what women wear and what men wear. Even in societies where men and women both wear jeans such as ours, there still remains a distinction in pantwear made for women and that made for men.

The only cultures in which no distinction is made between the kind of clothing that men and women wear are in those societies in which the people are made to wear gender neutral clothing. The two societies that might have come closest to this have been China under Mao Zedong and Cambodia under Pol-Pot.

And although some of the history you appeal to may be informative, there is no contextual evidence that Paul’s reasoning behind not allowing women to seek positions of authority over men had anything to do with a goddess cult. Furthermore, the Greco-Roman culture was not historically known to be a matriarchal society, but more importantly, it was not even scripturally known to be.

Nevertheless, there had to have still been something Paul observed in women that he did not observe in men that made him feel uncomfortable with allowing women to rule over men within the church. What that was, we can only speculate.

But because the Lord inspired to caution the churches he established about electing women to leadership positions placing them above men, it is still scripture that cannot be easily dismissed even in this generation.

And even upon comparing the Greek rendition of 1 Timothy 2:12-14 to the KJV translation, I still found the intent and meaning behind that passage to be contextually the same.

As for figures such as Miriam, Esther, and Deborah, what authority they were given pertained to civic leadership but none of them, nor any women for that matter, were ever called to serve priestly roles in the temple of God as far as scripture is concerned.

 

[The Righterzpen]

“This passage in Deuteronomy isn't talking about clothing per say. They're people that say ‘women shouldn't wear pants" because that's ‘men's clothing’…This passage in Deuteronomy is actually talking about battle armaments. A women is not to put on (battle armaments) above and beyond (in front of) that of men.”

This passages is clearly referring to clothing and there is no contextual evidence that this was speaking specifically about battle armaments. That in various cultures, in past times and now men and women have warn similar garments whether they be skirt/robe wear or pants, a distinction between the clothing that has pertained to women and that which has pertained to men has always remained.

It was no different in Hebrew culture. For example in Arab cultures, it could be argued that men and women both wear what we might describe as being skirt/robe like wear, but there still remains a distinction between what women wear and what men wear. Even in societies where men and women both wear jeans such as ours, there still remains a distinction in pantwear made for women and that made for men.

The only cultures in which no distinction is made between the kind of clothing that men and women wear are in those societies in which the people are made to wear gender neutral clothing. The two societies that might have come closest to this have been China under Mao Zedong and Cambodia under Pol-Pot.

And although some of the history you appeal to may be informative, there is no contextual evidence that Paul’s reasoning behind not allowing women to seek positions of authority over men had anything to do with a goddess cult. Furthermore, the Greco-Roman culture was not historically known to be a matriarchal society, but more importantly, it was not even scripturally known to be.

Nevertheless, there had to have still been something Paul observed in women that he did not observe in men that made him feel uncomfortable with allowing women to rule over men within the church. What that was, we can only speculate.

But because the Lord inspired to caution the churches he established about electing women to leadership positions placing them above men, it is still scripture that cannot be easily dismissed even in this generation.

And even upon comparing the Greek rendition of 1 Timothy 2:12-14 to the KJV translation, I still found the intent and meaning behind that passage to be contextually the same.

As for figures such as Miriam, Esther, and Deborah, what authority they were given pertained to civic leadership but none of them, nor any women for that matter, were ever called to serve priestly roles in the temple of God as far as scripture is concerned.

Look up said Deuteronomy passages in the Hebrew.

And as dealing with "women in leadership" compare all passages within the entire body of Scripture. Why would God account for female leaders in one era and not another; seeing how God is unchanging.

Your patriarchal view of Paul's writings is not contextually consistent with the whole body of Scripture and since we know God is consistent, I conclude that those who hold your understanding of this; hold a faulty view.

 

[Contenders Edge]

Look up said Deuteronomy passages in the Hebrew.

And as dealing with "women in leadership" compare all passages within the entire body of Scripture. Why would God account for female leaders in one era and not another; seeing how God is unchanging.

Your patriarchal view of Paul's writings is not contextually consistent with the whole body of Scripture and since we know God is consistent, I conclude that those who hold your understanding of this; hold a faulty view.

I looked up the Hebrew in the said passage of Deuteronomy and the words that pertain to clothing do not strictly pertain to battle attire as you say that it does, but in this case is applied in a general sense: Women are not to wear attire designated for men and men are not to wear clothes designated for women and while men and women did wear similar clothing, there was still a difference between what women wore and what men wore.

I never said that God ceased to account for female leadership at any time, but the instances in which He did place women in a position of leadership were rare. I also previously mentioned the possibility that Priscilla had a hand in heading a fellowship within her home alongside her husband. (1 Cor. 16:19)

You also claimed that my rendering of 1 Timothy 2:12-14 was based on a Patriarchal biased. I imposed no such bias. My rendering of that passage was word for word and within its proper context. Nothing more, nothing less. I never said that passage was a direct prohibition from God against women exercising authority over men in a fellowship.

I said that it was written as being a prohibition based upon a personal judgment of the Apostle Paul, but because he was inspired to place his reasoning behind why he felt uncomfortable with women possessing authority over men in the church, it cannot be ignored:

His fear about women heading churches and exercising authority over men in a church setting was because Eve was deceived into transgression instead of Adam. (1 Tim. 2:14) Perhaps this made him afraid that women were more susceptible to being led astray by heresies and false doctrines than men and in turn might inadvertently lead any congregations they headed astray.

Nevertheless, he never demanded that any women who may have already been holding such positions to relinquish such. The question then must be asked: Are women more susceptible to being led astray by false doctrines and heresies than men? Are they more easily to manipulate than men? What is there in the nature and character of women that might be a disqualifying factor for a Pastoral role that may not be as prevalent in men?

The context of 1 Timothy 2:12-14 has been this: It may not be the most expedient thing for a woman to be placed in a position where she wields authority over men within a fellowship, but at the same time, that passage should not be treated as a direct prohibition against doing so either.

That has been the position that I have been communicating in my response posts all along. I thought I had made myself clear on that from the very start.

 

[The Righterzpen]

I looked up the Hebrew in the said passage of Deuteronomy and the words that pertain to clothing do not strictly pertain to battle attire as you say that it does, but in this case is applied in a general sense:

Strong's Hebrew word #3627 translated as:
vessel 166x, instrument 39x, weapon 21x, jewel 21x, armor(bearer) 18x, stuff 14x, thing 11x, armor 10x, furniture 7x, carriage 3x, bag 2x, (miscellaneous) 13x

None of these translated words imply "clothing designed for men". All of these are connected to something men carry in relation to something they "do".

Now "...not put on (take up instrumentality of in regards to warfare) what pertains unto man ("valiant men", "warriors", "mighty men").

"Not shall be instituted armaments pertaining to warrior men placed beyond upon a woman; not put on a man garments of a woman; for an abomination to Yahweh ...."

Deuteronomy 22:5 Interlinear: The habiliments of a man are not on a woman, nor doth a man put on the garment of a woman, for the abomination of Jehovah thy God is any one doing these.

You also claimed that my rendering of 1 Timothy 2:12-14 was based on a Patriarchal biased.

Its translation is of patriarchal bias. My instruction of the Greek language (couplette used) and the historical evidence about goddess cults came out of this book:

https://www.cbeinternational.org/sites/default/files/i-suffer-not-woman-kroeger-pp073.pdf

 

[Contenders Edge]

Strong's Hebrew word #3627 translated as:
vessel 166x, instrument 39x, weapon 21x, jewel 21x, armor(bearer) 18x, stuff 14x, thing 11x, armor 10x, furniture 7x, carriage 3x, bag 2x, (miscellaneous) 13x

None of these translated words imply "clothing designed for men". All of these are connected to something men carry in relation to something they "do".

Now "...not put on (take up instrumentality of in regards to warfare) what pertains unto man ("valiant men", "warriors", "mighty men").

"Not shall be instituted armaments pertaining to warrior men placed beyond upon a woman; not put on a man garments of a woman; for an abomination to Yahweh ...."

Deuteronomy 22:5 Interlinear: The habiliments of a man are not on a woman, nor doth a man put on the garment of a woman, for the abomination of Jehovah thy God is any one doing these.



Its translation is of patriarchal bias. My instruction of the Greek language (couplette used) and the historical evidence about goddess cults came out of this book:

https://www.cbeinternational.org/sites/default/files/i-suffer-not-woman-kroeger-pp073.pdf

All the versions of Deut. 22:5 in the link you have provided do so indicate clothing. None of them strictly refer to armaments as you define it. Even the cited Young’s Literal Translation of that verse did not specifically state anything associated with warfare specifically. It just stated “habiliments” which could easily mean anything worn that is designed for a man.

What you also referenced in Strong’s Hebrew Word 3627 was not the actual definition according to Strong’s but rather how the word 3627 was translated; all the definitions it was applied to and the number of times applied to each listed definition. The word in question clearly has several different meanings, one of which can apply to implements associated with warfare, but not always. Word 3627 has also been translated as miscellaneous at least 13 times which could mean anything including clothing.

The actual definition of 3627 according to Strong’s is “something prepared” which can apply to many different things including “dress” which implies clothing. It also lists “that which pertaineth” which means more than what you say it does.

The source to which you appeal in your rendering of 1 Tim. 2:12 is incorrect in its definition of the word used for “authority.” They use the word “authentein” to define “authority” which they say can also mean “ to originate” when the actual word defining authority in the case of 1 Tim. 2:12 according to Strong’s 831 (Greek), was “authenteo” which is defined as “dominate” or to “usurp authority over.” No other definitions are attached to it.

While goddess worship was undeniably prevalent in the Greco-Roman culture, the Kroeger’s thesis is not consistent with how the text presents itself. In order for their thesis on 1 Tim. 2:12 to be correct, Paul would have had to outrightly address the goddess cults in that passage and if they were bringing heresy into the Church at that time, there would have been direct mention of it in his epistles. The Bible lists a number of different false doctrines besetting the early church, but doctrines founded in goddess worship are not mentioned in any of the epistles.

The only passages of scripture to which Kroeger’s thesis claiming of goddess cult heresies infiltrating the church might best apply would be Revelation 2:20-23 in which Jesus rebuked the church in Thyatira for tolerating the immoral doctrines of a woman named Jezebel who called herself a prophetess and seduced the saints into committing fornication and to eat things sacrificed to idols, warning that because she would repent of her immorality and false doctrine, that she and any following her would face judgment.

But even if the Kroeger thesis were to be applied to Rev. 2:202-23, it could only be done so in theory and not as established fact because again, this passage does not specifically mention what this Jezebel’s heresy was founded on. It could have just as easily been a heresy of her own making as it could have been derived from a goddess worshipping cult creed.

If 1 Tim. 2:12-14 had been translated with a patriarchal bias it would have been made out to say, “suffer not a woman to teach or to usurp authority over a man” to make it appear to be directly forbidden by God for woman to hold authority over a man in the church instead of saying “I suffer not” which implies that this passage was written based on a personal and understandable judgment on the part of Paul and not a direct command from God.