"I implore Euodia and Syntyche"

Discuss Biblical and theological support for concept that Bible teaches equality between sexes.

Moderator: Metacrock

Post Reply
ZAROVE
Posts: 412
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:07 pm

Re: "I implore Euodia and Syntyche"

Post by ZAROVE » Tue Apr 08, 2008 12:17 pm

Actually it asmre than just the "Open heart and mind" comment,even the beginnin when you said that soemone as convinced as I should not be addressed gave the impresion tot he hwoel fo the text that somehow I wa snto considerign alternate views.

Follow this by th elink you provided, a link to a "Testemony" that "ISnt an argument" that nevertheless contians a good deal fo mateiral that is,as a matter of fact, argumentation for the allowance of women preaching, and that toward the middle becomes rather condecending towards htose of us who find themslves disagreeing, it becomes rather a bit annoying.

I holdno animosity towards others, of course, but, of coruse, beign a very English soul I will alwyas sound harsh and cold to the American reader.


On that note, I will sya that for years Ive heard htis, that those who do not accept women preaching are somehow not listengin tot hose wonderful and open minded folks who do happen to allow it.But that is harldy an argument,nor is a heartfelt testimony, least of all one hwoch has ot use derogetory temrs and seperatist lables for those who hold an oposing view, sch a s"Patriarichal" and "Heirarichalists".

If you woudl, for the sae of arugment, adopt the position that women shoudln't preach, and read the testamony, you iwll see what I mean. Would you liek to be addressed in such terms?

It also strikes me that this Testamonial evidence is harldy reliable, sicne it shows only oen side of the debate iwhtotu condsideign the oposiiton. I am expected ot be open minded, but apparnelty the same demand is not made upon those working toward allowign women to preach.

the laoded language is, of ocruse, the greatest stumblign block forme.

I do treat women asEquels, but beign equel is nto the same thing asallowing women to preach the Gosepl. Equality in dignity and charecter is not the same asbeign able to perform the same tasks.

In much the same way as I see myself equel to my Queen, who is a woman, yet do not find that Equality entutles me to treat her any way I desire, and she is owed certain privlidges due a Soverign.

Equality under the law is nto the same thing as full permission to do whatever you please.

But do re-read your blessed testamony, with an open heart andmind, and see what I mean. Its not void of arugmentaiton, but is presente din a fahson that allows it to dispence with the oposing view and why its held by merley tlakign abotu how Rude Pastor CHuck was and how all those Queastsn fo Patricias wherewonderuflly unanswerable by those liek me who can't, and hwo we are fearful and rude to those hwo challege us and our patriarcihal view. Ah we Heirarichalists are a colourful lot!


As to my point on the Woman Preachers testamonies form those who oppose, unliek you I didn't bign them up in order to shwo off a testamony. I recall readignthem and am sure one can reaidly find them if one searches the internet, but my point was less about puttign their words agaisnt the words of your guy in that blog, rather, it only means htis. Such testamoniesaren't sufficient proof to determien what the Scripture says.

The Bible is quiet clear on the matter, and I can,andwill, explain 1Timothy Chapter 2 if asked.

I won't be rude, I wont snap, I dwon'tsay that you shoudl eb silent befor eme andjust accept it, btu I can explain things in hat Chaoter. Perhapsmy explanaiton won't be to yourliing, but it willbe an explanaiton.

I also have answrs for each ueasiton broguth up in that Testamony, answers which have been abotu for yearsm, long befor emy time,and yet wheren't addressed in it.

Thus I fidn the testamony worthless as it is too one sided.

Scripture binds us, and that alone.

Our answers thus must come from Scripture, andnot private interpetation of Scripture.

The Scriptures resewrve for men the role of PReacher.

THis is written, and it was written bunder Inspiration.

To break this is to break the bonds of scripture, and ot disobey its clear mandates.

And where woudl that pattern of disoedience end?

1 TImothy chapter2 is as fllows, starign at verse 9.


9. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
10. But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
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.
15. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.


Women sit in subjection both as a Reminder of the fall of Man, and so it shoudl be.


I also found the comment about woman leadership in the home particulalry offensive. He asked what of the man lacked leaderhsipskills, or was disabled?

I am disabled.

Shoud I, if I marry, give over to my wife leaderhsip of the household because I am a cripple?

Are we disabled folks really infirior?

I have much to comment on what you linked, that youlikely missed in your uspport for womens Preahcign rights, but I fear to rpesent it as doign so wudl of ocurse be misconstrued. I am, as I said, cold by nature. Lovign, respectful, but not overly emotional amd very precise and,form a Yankee poitn fo view, rpetentious.

Still, I foudn the Testamony itself unconvincing, in that it presente donly its side, and depicted htose who disagree as the enemy whilst sowign those who support its cause as nobleand true and brave.

Is that intended to convinceme? Or where the queasitons that I'd heard beforeintended to?

ZAROVE
Posts: 412
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:07 pm

Re: "I implore Euodia and Syntyche"

Post by ZAROVE » Tue Apr 08, 2008 3:50 pm

I dont mean offence of ocurse, but, I do thin when you foudn the artile above you simply focised on what it claiemd ot be because it seemed to supportyour view, and htus did not notice the less-than-pleasant aspects of it.

You likely took on face value that it was a Testamony and not an argument, and saw it as one mans story of how he changed his midn told gently.

You did notnotice how it depicted those who disagreed, or the fact that it offeredall the queasitons to the view that women shoudl not preach but fialed ot examine possible answrs. After all, it snot an argument but a sotry, right?

Of ocuse the effect of this is to not really know why women preahcign is objected to whilst allowing those who hodl this view to be particulalry poorly presented, such as Pastor Chuck.

Neither was any attempt mad ein this "Testamony" to even consider the actual answers offered to Patricias Queasitons.

You liekly overlooked the ocnecendant tone on how we"Hweirarichalists" and "Patriarichalsist" are,and did not seem to notice that he claismwomen shuld have leaderhsip in a house if the man is disabled.


But it is still there.

I didnt psot the abov elenghty post tp rebuke and chastise,nor is htis one. I just type long psosts it seems.

I have no Animosity towards ou either.

Still,the presentaiton wa sone sidedand rather a bit biased, and I'm afraid that I don't like the idea of beign givne the chocie of Acceptignwomen preachers or being closed minded.

That is the choice givne in the testamony.

There is much, if you re-read that testamony, that actually isprecicely this,arugment on a one sided basis pretendign to be a simply sotry ofone mans journey, and htta fails to look at any other view.

Somehow I'm not ipressed.

Neither am I impressed with how oposiiton views are treated.


I again have no disregard or loss of esteem form you, but I won't be Open minded if by beign open minded you mean abandoning ,y principles and convicions to suit the desires of another set pf persons.

User avatar
KR Wordgazer
Posts: 1410
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:07 pm

Re: "I implore Euodia and Syntyche"

Post by KR Wordgazer » Tue Apr 08, 2008 3:58 pm

ZAROVE wrote:Actually it asmre than just the "Open heart and mind" comment,even the beginnin when you said that soemone as convinced as I should not be addressed gave the impresion tot he hwoel fo the text that somehow I wa snto considerign alternate views.
Actually, when I said that, it really wasn't intended as a veiled accusation, but stemmed from the fact that as a Protestant, I find myself unequal to addressing this:
I'm afraid that, with all my reading of the Fathers, and all my readign of the Counsils, this was the concensus.
You have said that you don't believe in "private interpretation." You cite the Fathers and the Counsels. That is why this whole thing seems to me to be a "vain dispute." How can little old me compete with the Fathers and the Counsels? :lol: Why on earth would you give any weight to my "private interpretation," no matter how accurate a reading of Scripture I feel it is? Particularly since your reading says that as a woman, I am by my very nature (the nature of Eve) unfit to do anything but learn in silence and submission. Why on earth would you want to listen to me? (Please don't take this as an attack on you, but as an honest statement of the dilemma I feel I'm in here.)

That's why I gave you, instead of an interpretation of the scriptures, and instead of my own womanly opinon, a testimony, and that by a man. I am sorry that you found it offensive. I can see now why you would. I myself would not, and have never, called you a Patriarchist or a Heierarchalist (however those are spelled, heh, heh). I don't find such terms helpful to discussion, any more than I would like being called an "uppity feminist" or something.

You have always treated me with dignity and respect, Zarove, and I had no intention to treat you otherwise. But there really isn't any argument I can make that will have any weight with you here, so I'm not going to continue to try.
Last edited by KR Wordgazer on Tue Apr 08, 2008 5:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Wag more.
Bark less.

User avatar
KR Wordgazer
Posts: 1410
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:07 pm

Re: "I implore Euodia and Syntyche"

Post by KR Wordgazer » Tue Apr 08, 2008 4:28 pm

I feel, though, that I must address this whole issue of "leadership in the home." This is not a "private interpretation," but simply a direct translation of the Greek words.

There is a word meaning "householder" or "master of the house" used in Matthew 10:25; Luke 13:25 and 14:21. It is "oikodespotes," literally meaning "ruler of the house." 1 Timothy 5:14 uses the verb form of this word, "oikodespotein," in reference to women in the home. 1 Timothy 5:14 says, “I will that the younger women marry, bear children, oikodespotein, and give no occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.” "Ruling the house" is thus not just the province of the man, but also of the woman. In fact, the Revised Version of the Bible translates this passage as saying women are to "rule their homes," or something similar.

Leadership in the home is something jointly held by the husband and the wife, according to the plain language of Scripture in its original tongue.
Wag more.
Bark less.

ZAROVE
Posts: 412
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:07 pm

Re: "I implore Euodia and Syntyche"

Post by ZAROVE » Tue Apr 08, 2008 7:19 pm

You have said that you don't believe in "private interpretation."
tHE REASON CAN BE FOUDN IN 2 pETER 1:20.


You cite the Fathers and the Counsels. That is why this whole thing seems to me to be a "vain dispute." How can little old me compete with the Fathers and the Counsels? Why on earth would you give any weight to my "private interpretation," no matter how accurate a reading of Scripture I feel it is?


Which brign sup an interestign point.

Why should I ignore 2000 years of Church history, and the plain word of God, to embrace soemthign that lacks Historacity and contradicts the Scriptures, just because it suits a modern sensabilioty?

I do not think the CHurhc Counsils and Fathers where themselves Infallable. Obviously I reject much of what Augustine said, but, I do think that the consensus of the whole Church is farmore reliable than the individual standing alone in the wind.

Can an individual be right and a majorty wrong? Of ocurse,thats why I don't favour Democracy, but at the saem time,an individual can be very, verywrong.

When dealign in matters of the Scriptures, it is going to be evident that if somehtign is an unbroken tradition fromt he tme of the Apostles onward, it will be much harder to challenge as an individual without superlative evidence.

When I spoke of the Counsils and the Fathers, incedentlaly, I did so to address Metacrocks claim of women as Presbyters and Bishops. He made the claim that the Early Churhc had omen in those roles, and yet, I seeno evidence of this.


I see no evidence of women as Presbyters and women as Bishops.

The Church Counsils and the Fathers seem, on the other hand, unanimous when the matter is discussed that this did not occure, so how can we say the Early Churhc had omen in those roles, and why shoudld I accept this?


Particularly since your reading says that as a woman, I am by my very nature (the nature of Eve) unfit to do anything but learn in silence and submission.
I do hate this argument about "Euqlaity for women" precicely because of the above sentiments. No, that is neithermy view nor the view of Scripture, rather, the Scripture says a woman shall learn in silence and submission in CHurhces, but it dons't limit the whole of a owmans existance to such.



Why on earth would you want to listen to me? (Please don't take this as an attack on you, but as an honest statement of the dilemma I feel I'm in here.)
Because this is not a Church session. I do not think that by your very nature, the nature of Eve, you ar eincapable of anythign other htan submissive learning. That is the ocnclusion you drew.

I am remidned of ealrier how you asked me how I can beleiv ein a small, decentralised Govenment since i was a Monarhcist.

I fear this si the same, that you don't fully understand how things are sen onmy end.

Monarchies are, of ocurse,not simply Govenrment sliek we have now with an UnelectedKing instead of an Elected President,and needn't be particulalry large scale.In fact, the Feudal system had no concept pf the Naitomn-State, but rather had Local Lords who swore feilty to a King,who ran things with a rather small Privy COunsil, and with a great deal of AUtonomy to each Feifdom.

But you assume that a Monarhcy woudl bealarge, centralised Government, beause you think in terms of Modern Republics and accept many of the same precepts on which they arebased as how Giovenrments run in total.

The same is true here. The issue truely extends beyind women and their nature to either be equel to men or be silent, and the nuancesand complexety are often overlooked.

As I said in my lenghty post above, in an attemt to clarify thesematters, I do see women as equel to men. I simply do not see them as eligable to preach.

The matter is not the same.


That's why I gave you, instead of an interpretation of the scriptures, and instead of my own womanly opinon, a testimony, and that by a man.
Which was highly irrelevant.

Do you know that many women oppose women as preachers?

I know several who do personally.

Do you knwo that, asa woman, I'd still listen to you? Why do you assume that I wouldn't?

Do you even see how that is offensive?

I am sorry that you found it offensive. I can see now why you would. I myself would not, and have never, called you a Patriarchist or a Heierarchalist (however those are spelled, heh, heh). I don't find such terms helpful to discussion, any more than I would like being called an "uppity feminist" or something.

Yet this is precicley what you linked to,and even above when you xay that I'd not listen to your womanly opinion you are, in essence, sayign that I don't listen to women and imply that this is somehowmy view on things.


You have always treated me with dignity and respect, Zarove, and I had no intention to treat you otherwise. But there really isn't any argument I can make that will have any weight with you here, so I'm not going to continue to try.

Undersood.


I must, however,always go with what was written, andnot new innovations.


I feel, though, that I must address this whole issue of "leadership in the home." This is not a "private interpretation," but simply a direct translation of the Greek words.

Do you speak the GReek well?


There is a word meaning "householder" or "master of the house" used in Matthew 10:25; Luke 13:25 and 14:21. It is "oikodespotes," literally meaning "ruler of the house." 1 Timothy 5:14 uses the verb form of this word, "oikodespotein," in reference to women in the home. 1 Timothy 5:14 says, “I will that the younger women marry, bear children, oikodespotein, and give no occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.” "Ruling the house" is thus not just the province of the man, but also of the woman. In fact, the Revised Version of the Bible translates this passage as saying women are to "rule their homes," or something similar.

I wonder if you readmy earlier statement sin full?


I don't disocunt your view because you are a woman.Neithe did I say a woman must be a slave to a man, and indeed, I spacificlaly denied this.

I have stated above that women and men are equels, and do share in the responcibility of the home.

But their roles int he home differ, just as their natures do, and in complemntary ways.

The man acts as, in modern parlance to help with undertsanding, the CHeif Executive Officer, whilst the woman acts as a sort of Head of the Board. The two riles hve roughly equel power, but do not perform the same function.

That is how I view marriage,as an adequate business run on lines of shared but seperate power.

Of ocurse the matter of marirage is not businessand htis is a Metaphore, but nevertheless, I never said women where only to submit and be controled.

Leadership in the home is something jointly held by the husband and the wife, according to the plain language of Scripture in its original tongue.

Which I denied where?

I argued only that women shoudl not be permitted to Preach, and that women are not the same as Men.

But I do beleive I had said this also.

User avatar
KR Wordgazer
Posts: 1410
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:07 pm

Re: "I implore Euodia and Syntyche"

Post by KR Wordgazer » Wed Apr 09, 2008 5:30 pm

ZAROVE wrote:
You have said that you don't believe in "private interpretation."
tHE REASON CAN BE FOUDN IN 2 pETER 1:20.
I am, of course, familiar with the passage. The actual wording is, "Knowing this, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (emphasis mine)

The passage we are talking about is not a prophecy. In fact, Paul's exhortation about women teaching is specifically worded as not intended to be taken as "thus saith the Lord." See my explanation of this below.


You cite the Fathers and the Counsels. That is why this whole thing seems to me to be a "vain dispute." How can little old me compete with the Fathers and the Counsels? Why on earth would you give any weight to my "private interpretation," no matter how accurate a reading of Scripture I feel it is?


Which brign sup an interestign point.

Why should I ignore 2000 years of Church history, and the plain word of God, to embrace soemthign that lacks Historacity and contradicts the Scriptures, just because it suits a modern sensabilioty?
But your statements are not "the plain word of God," but are themselves an interpretation. Here is your quote of the scripture, and your statements about it::
1 TImothy chapter2 is as fllows, starign at verse 9.


9. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
10. But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
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.
15. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.


Women sit in subjection both as a Reminder of the fall of Man, and so it shoudl be.
the Scripture says a woman shall learn in silence and submission in CHurhces
Because this is not a Church session. I do not think that by your very nature, the nature of Eve, you ar eincapable of anythign other htan submissive learning.
First of all, looking at the passage you quoted in 2 Timothy-- reading the larger context, I see absolutely no indication that Paul is limiting his words about women "teaching or usurping authority over the man" to Church sessions or while "in the Church." The larger context contains exhortations of many different kinds. The idea that women are to "be silent and learn in submission" being only during Church, is an idea outside the plain text, and therefore an interpretation placed on it. I certainly agree that it is very unlikely that Paul is saying God forbids women to teach in any context, but the idea that the interdiction is only for "in the Church" is not part of the plain text.

So also is the idea that the mention of Eve here is as "a reminder of the Fall of man." In fact, if one takes away the whole "this applies only to in the Church" interpretation, and takes the passage as a for-always direct command from God, it is just as logical to interpret the mention of Eve as a statement that it is woman's very nature that renders her unfit to teach men or to do other than "learn in silence and submission."

Both of the ideas you state are not "the plain word of God" from a direct reading of the text, but are interpretations. Which is why regarding this:
Do you knwo that, asa woman, I'd still listen to you? Why do you assume that I wouldn't?

Do you even see how that is offensive?
I can only say that I hoped you would not think that as a woman I was not worth listening to-- in fact, I believed that that was the case, as you have never treated my words as not worth listening to-- but there is no particular reason why this scripture, if taken as an instruction for all times and cultures (and divorced from the interpretation that it applies only to in Church), should not instruct you that I should not be listened to. My intention was not to be offensive, but simply to take this into account.
I do not think the CHurhc Counsils and Fathers where themselves Infallable. Obviously I reject much of what Augustine said, but, I do think that the consensus of the whole Church is farmore reliable than the individual standing alone in the wind.

Can an individual be right and a majorty wrong? Of ocurse,thats why I don't favour Democracy, but at the saem time,an individual can be very, verywrong.

When dealign in matters of the Scriptures, it is going to be evident that if somehtign is an unbroken tradition fromt he tme of the Apostles onward, it will be much harder to challenge as an individual without superlative evidence.

When I spoke of the Counsils and the Fathers, incedentlaly, I did so to address Metacrocks claim of women as Presbyters and Bishops. He made the claim that the Early Churhc had omen in those roles, and yet, I seeno evidence of this.

I see no evidence of women as Presbyters and women as Bishops.

The Church Counsils and the Fathers seem, on the other hand, unanimous when the matter is discussed that this did not occure, so how can we say the Early Churhc had omen in those roles, and why shoudld I accept this?
I agree that they were not infallible, though I do respect them. But I also note that they were men, and that they were immersed in their own historical cultures. I recognize that I also am a product of my culture-- but also that the Bible transcends culture. Though the principles of the Scriptures are embedded in the cultures in which they were written, those principles, once understood in context, can be applied across cultures. The question in my mind, then, is whether the interpretation of the Church Fathers was in line with what a plain reading of the text gives us.

So-- to take a plain reading of the text:

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.

Women are to "learn in silence with all subjection." And then Paul says, "I suffer not a woman to teach. . . " The word "I" here is essential to an understanding of the text. Paul characteristically uses this "I" when he is referring to a rule which is not a direct command from the Lord, but is a matter of Paul's personal wisdom. See for instance, I Cor 7:12-- "But to rest speak I, not the Lord. . ."

Paul specifically says "I do not suffer a woman to teach," not "The woman is not to teach." If he had meant the more direct wording, as a command from the Lord, I think he would have said it that way. But he says "I do not suffer a woman to teach."

Then he goes on to give the reason, "For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived. . ." Note the emphasis on chronology. Adam was formed first, Eve later. I think the clearest way to read this is that Eve, therefore, was younger and had less experience of life and the Creation than Adam had (particularly since Adam spent all that time naming the animals, it's clear he was alive for quite some time before Eve was made). Eve, then was deceived, but Adam wasn't. Why? Because Adam had had time to learn things that Eve had not. And the same situation applied to women and men in the Church in Paul's day. The men were educated; the women uneducated. The men had been learning all their lives; the women were only now being allowed to begin to learn anything. Therefore, there was every reason why women, if allowed to teach, would become deceived because of not having enough prior learning. Therefore women are to "learn in silence and submission."

(There are plenty of other passages in Paul's writings that make it clear that he does not place the responsibility for the Fall of Man solely or even mostly on Eve. In fact, in the Book of Romans he speaks of the Fall of Man in terms of Adam, not Eve. So I don't think it works to interpret this passage as "woman sitting in subjection as a reminder of the Fall." No, the issue here is "being deceived" and how to prevent it in the current situation.)

But does this apply for all time? Are women always to "be silent" and not to be "suffered to teach"? If that were the case, as I said before, would not Paul have simply said, "Women are to be silent and not to teach" rather than "I do not suffer a woman to teach"?

I think a plain but careful reading of the text in its context reveals the meaning. Paul was not allowing women to teach for an indefinite period, presumably until they had sufficient time to "learn in silence and submission." To teach before they had completed their learning would have been to usurp authority from the men who were teaching them. If the Church Fathers didn't "get" this meaning due to their own cultural context, then with all respect, I'm still going to go with a plain, careful reading of the text and its context.
I feel, though, that I must address this whole issue of "leadership in the home." This is not a "private interpretation," but simply a direct translation of the Greek words.

Do you speak the GReek well?
No. But I know how to use a concordance and an expository dictionary. :D Check Vine's entry on the word "oikodespotes" if you like. I assume Vine is enough of a Greek scholar for you? :mrgreen:

I also have an extensive background in the interpretation of literature, and how to read a piece of writing for meaning, context, etc.

I wonder if you readmy earlier statement sin full?
Yes, I read them in full.

I have stated above that women and men are equels, and do share in the responcibility of the home.

But their roles int he home differ, just as their natures do, and in complemntary ways.

The man acts as, in modern parlance to help with undertsanding, the CHeif Executive Officer, whilst the woman acts as a sort of Head of the Board. The two riles hve roughly equel power, but do not perform the same function.

That is how I view marriage,as an adequate business run on lines of shared but seperate power.

Of ocurse the matter of marirage is not businessand htis is a Metaphore, but nevertheless, I never said women where only to submit and be controled.
No, I agree that you never said that.
Leadership in the home is something jointly held by the husband and the wife, according to the plain language of Scripture in its original tongue.

Which I denied where?
You objected to the idea in the "testimony" you disliked so much, that men under certain circumstances should let their wives be the leaders in the home. I was merely pointing out that I didn't think either the man nor the woman was to be the exclusive leader of the home.
Last edited by KR Wordgazer on Wed Apr 09, 2008 6:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Wag more.
Bark less.

ZAROVE
Posts: 412
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:07 pm

Re: "I implore Euodia and Syntyche"

Post by ZAROVE » Wed Apr 09, 2008 6:50 pm

ACTUALLY the enture letter of 1 Timothy, and 2Timothy for that matter are Pastoral Epistles. They where spacifilaly designed to inmsturct yungTimothy in how toadminister a Church. If you take the entur ebook ad a context,this is what is beign discussed. Sayign its not abot Churhc ordinance is itself missing the urpose of the book as a whole, which I cannot quote in whole because that woudl take wlel too much timeforyou or anyoen else to read, btu it is freely available online.

That said, their are even oher passages which make the same admonition. If you look at tem, you will see that this is harldy an Isolated verse.


As to men tellign women not to teach int he CHurhc beign because they where emersed in their culture, this isnt true, nor is mien simply an interpretation, and we shall discuss both.

The firts isabout interpretaiton, in which you seem tot hink that my interpetaiton and ors ar eboth equelly valid,or at leats that the way we read the text i stilljust Intepretaiton.THis idea,so uniquely alein to the Scriptrues themselvs, overlooks a basic idea invovled in writting.Autherial intent. The Author, in this case Saint Paul the Apostle, had a spacific meanign in midn when he wrote the text, and as best aswecan it is htta meanign which we should aspire to use. I do not endeavour to interpret the Scripture base dupon my culture or ideas,btu rather attemto to understand what Paul wrote, and his is what we all must do, andnot subjec tourselves to our ownprivate interpretation.

The men, whom you say wheremen of their culture and hwo interpeted the Scriptueealon their own culturallines, where willign to die for CHrist JEsus. THis wasa time when being a CHristian coudl eaislyhave gotten you killed.Christians stiood out form the world they lived in,and developed thier own Culture and values,apart fromt he Roman world.

These men abandoend the striggle for pwoer, the worhsip of the Pantheon of ROme, and the idea of the mightiest to rule, aswell as a host of other cultural precepts and perceptions which ende dup hacign them labled ahtiests, and fools,and weak, and enslavable.

THey did not fllowtheir culture in all the things which they where told to, and yet you woudl have us beleive here that the men who sat int e counsils only forbade women from PReahcign because of their culture, the same culture they had rejected in Favour of Christ and the same culture they had abandined to their own peril at the risl fo their imediate eath at the hands of he ORmans or Jews.

No, I'm afraid the idea that they where merley produts of heir cultre and htus made such an interrpetation doesn't sit with me asaccurate.Not when I read hte lives of the Fathes who where for htier day so counter-cultural.


This text may not sy it is Prophecy in a modern sence, but the term Prophecy itself has been,and is ued , to refer to any text of Scrpture. Peter did refer to the writings f Paul as Scripture, and in 1 TImohy chapter 1 verse 18 wesee Paul tellign TImothy that Prophesies had precceede dhim.

The textas it stands does warrent consideration,and to be understood as it was intended, andnot asa mere interrpetaiton. The COunsil Fathers did not need ot be thoguth of asmerley the products of their cuture when they denied it so often. Wecertiany neednto say women should be allowed ot preahc base don a Precedent in the Early Church which is not proven to have occured,and certianly not in accordance tot he Scripture.

Of ocurse you say this portion fo the textsays Paul denies it was "Thus Saieth the Lord", but does it?

Thats not what 1 TImothy chapter 1 or 2 says, and I think you are ocnfusing this portion with anothe ro Pausl writtings, btu as it stands Paulmakesno such disclaimer in he passagesweare discussing.


It is Scripture, givne to us by an Apostle ont he Inspiration fo the Holy Ghost. That is what it is and this is hat it says.

Anythign beyind this is not supported.


Nowm if you want ot argue for women bein allowed to preach, perhaps you coudl do so with soemthign supportable?Otherwise, this stands as it is.

User avatar
KR Wordgazer
Posts: 1410
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:07 pm

Re: "I implore Euodia and Syntyche"

Post by KR Wordgazer » Wed Apr 09, 2008 7:19 pm

Zarove,

Believe it or not, I am attempting to understand what Paul wrote. I do understand that he was writing to Timothy about how to run a church.

And I learned all about authorial intent in my numberous lit classes.

Do you think that all Paul was doing was telling Timothy how to conduct church services? Was he not also talking about how he should teach his congregation to conduct their lives?

Was Paul telling Timothy he should tell women to only dress modestly when they came to church? When he said men were to "pray everywhere, lifting holy hands without wrath and doubting," did he mean only during the church service? Should "supplications for kings" only be made in church?

No, the context of 1 Tim. 2:11-12 is in the context, not of what is to be done within the church building during the service, but how Timothy should ask his congregation to conduct their daily lives. Why, then, would the interdiction against women teaching apply only to during church?

I'm just trying to be consistent. Either Christian women are to follow an injunction for their whole lives never to teach men-- or the passage is a temporary injunction. "Just don't teach in church" is inconsistent.

As for your interpretation that all Scripture is prophecy, I simply cannot agree. Especially in light of I Cor. 7, where Paul does specifically state that it isn't always directly from the Lord.

As for this:
Nowm if you want ot argue for women bein allowed to preach, perhaps you coudl do so with soemthign supportable?Otherwise, this stands as it is.
How can you exhort me to take a higher tone, and then use this tone with me? Wow.
Wag more.
Bark less.

ZAROVE
Posts: 412
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:07 pm

Re: "I implore Euodia and Syntyche"

Post by ZAROVE » Wed Apr 09, 2008 8:02 pm

The tone i use is neutral. That is how I speak regardless of agreement or not, and irrespective of feelings.

That said, when spakign of Teahcing Paul must be speaking of the Church as that is where one learend. He said the women shoudl larn in silence or ask queasitosn they had at home from their husbands, which indicates they can speak at home.

It is thus the contention of myself andevery authority I have read in the ancient Churchthat this woudl mean preciclely this. Women do not take active teachign roles in the Church, which is where people went to learn.

Its not liek they had regular schooling at this point in time.

User avatar
KR Wordgazer
Posts: 1410
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:07 pm

Re: "I implore Euodia and Syntyche"

Post by KR Wordgazer » Thu Apr 10, 2008 9:28 am

It may seem "neutral" to you, Zarove, but I'd ask you to do the same thing you asked me-- turn it around and see how you'd feel if someone spoke this way to you.

It is a bit irritating to explain to someone that you have extensive training in lit, and then have them think they need to explain authorial intent to you. It's like if I told you I was a scientist, and then you thought it necessary to tell me what the periodic table of elements was.

Rather than simply tell me you disagree with my arguments, you dismiss them out of hand with by telling me they are not "supportable"-- and in the form of a lofty question.

No, your tone is not neutral, however much you think it is.

My tone was intended to be neutral earlier, yet when you told me I had offended, I apologized. I didn't say, "No, I wasn't offensive." I said, "I'm sorry, I didn't intend to offend." Two different things, my friend. One is dismissive, the other takes into account the professed feelings of the other party.
Wag more.
Bark less.

Post Reply