Is "only" one command not to tease the dog not enough?
Is "only" one command not to touch a hot stove not enough?
I have found that folks who won't listen the first time seldom will after two or three either.
One verse in scripture is quite enough for those who believe "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" (2 Tim 3:16)
The tradition rabbinical method required two witnesses, and in terms of expounding the scriptures that meant the law and the prophets. They were quite careful about the process.
πᾶσα γραφὴ in 2 Timothy 3:16 in its context suggests that it is referring to the Old Testament and given the experience of the times almost certainly it would be taken to mean the LXX (Septuagint) which includes the deuterocanonicals. I quite seriously doubt that the author had any idea that they would be taken to be implying that they were referring to their own writings.
Doesn't that make you question the motives of those trying to discredit it then?
That could be a valid point, however there is a weight of scholarship which draws in conclusions based on the weight of evidence before them. If the letter to Timothy is in some way different to what has been observed elsewhere, then one must allow that there is a strong possibility that there were particular circumstances that Timothy was dealing with.
Independently doing laundry?
I guess...
I am assuming you understand my immediate response to this absurd statement, however I will bless and not curse, how ever I would like to let you know that your male chauvinism is showing.
You didn't write what word you are parsing (?).
I think you mean the word "subjection" in 1 Tim 2:11.
Paul's writings here go hand in glove with every other "picture" of hierarchical tiers in scripture.
God-Jesus-man-woman.
God-Jesus-church-man.
The word I was discussing was αὐθεντεῖν
It does seem to me that the barriers are broken down, Jesus is God, Jesus is truly human, and the enmity between man and woman (a mark of the fall) has been done away with for in Christ there is neither male nor female.
You are of course on this point 100% correct. At the beginning of the very first second that ever was, God had a history, and at the end of the last second that ever will be, God has a future. Both time and being only have meaning in the context of God.
2 Corinthians 5:16-21 From now on, therefore, we regard no one from a human point of view; even though we once knew Christ from a human point of view, we know him no longer in that way. So if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new! All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us. So we are ambassadors for Christ, since God is making his appeal through us; we entreat you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
This message of reconciliation we are called to share has not changed, for it is eternal. We, the church, are called to proclaim the everlasting gospel in a world of time and space. In the world of 1st century Eastern Europe and the Levant the subjugation of women was a cultural norm. Jesus did not come into the world to endorse the cultural norms of that day and impose them on eternity.
1 Corinthians 19-23 For though I am free with respect to all, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though I myself am not under the law) so that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law) so that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, so that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, so that I might by any means save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, so that I may share in its blessings.
I think this passage is quite informative about Paul and how he thought about culture. He sought to work within it in order that the light of the gospel might be seen. We all know that there are many counter cultural aspects to the message (love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you ...) yet it seems to me that Paul wanted people to hear the message where they were, physically (hence the missionary journeys, and culturally as he explains in this passage.
I am a long way from convinced that in the context of today Paul would do anything but support and endorse the ministry of women.
Peace in Christ
