1Timothy2 Challenge

[razzelflabben]

First point. True. God's purpose is to eventually restore everything to the way it was before the fall, but right, that's another discussion.

On the second. One thing we have to take note of, is that most of Paul's letters are in response to letters or word he received via ministry messenger on the churches he oversaw, and those letters are not provided for us to read unfortunately, as it would help to clarify some of Paul's writings that are hard to understand. Timothy was the appointed pastor by Paul of his church.

and Timothy would have followed the same church discipline rules. Not to mention that such a letter would have been directed specifically to Timothy and not the church body that Timothy was over.

Paul was not present at the location during the issue that needed to be addressed, therefore could not take the two aside even if he had wanted to.

But Timothy could have not to mention that Paul would have instructed him to had it been an issue that only affected the one woman.

Timothy looked to Paul for guidance, direction and instruction regarding issues in his church. Paul was giving Timothy that direction, guidance and instruction,

Paul would have instructed Timothy to follow church discipline if the whole body was not suffering from the issue.

which is useful for any pastor of any successive generations if/when faced with a similar issue in part or in whole depending on whether the offender is married or not. I'll give you an example of a true story. Once in our church we had a fairly new member, a woman, who began taking people aside either before or after service, or during service if another woman went to the restroom and was prophesying to them. This was an issue where, the leadership was not familiar with the woman and was not given the opportunity to test her and prove her. She obviously did not subject herself to be proved and tested by the leaders in the Church, therefore until such time she was, she was stopped. Not because she was a woman, but because this was necessary to protect the sheep from an unknown who had not been proved. Obviously if a person is called of God to prophesy, then such a person would have done so in obedience to the Lord, according to the Scripture and be tested and proved by others with the prophetic giftings in that present body of believers.

Not sure what your point is...

It isn't necessarily true that the letters to Timothy specifically, were copied and sent out to all churches at that very time.

No, not all the varying churches, the church Timothy was overseeing.

We have no information to conclude such. There is no indication that Timothy read the entire letter to his church either at that time.

look it up the tradition of the time was to read the letter to the entire church body. Not to mention that if only Timothy read it (which obviously is wrong in that we are reading it ourselves) Paul would have instructed Timothy in church discipline not church body discipline.

But let's for a moment assume they were distributed and/or read in their entirety immediately upon receipt. (assuming Timothy used no wisdom or discretion in the reading of the entirety part). We are not even told how many she was teaching in err.

exactly...glad I said that....

There is nothing indicating that she preached a service to all in attendance, or if she was teaching a couple of people things on the side, that they asked Timothy about which brought it to his attention in the first place. Any of that would have to be added to the text as it doesn't say. The fact that Paul did not name the woman or her husband's names however, does clearly indicate that Paul was not intending to make it publicly known who they were, and the reason being that she was not a willful deceiver, but one who was in error.

but this also questions the conclusion of only one woman involved. If there was only one woman involved, names would have been used as we see in other of Paul's letters. He knew the people, as would Timothy have known them, intimately, they were a family.

Paul was also one who was in error when he was a Pharisee, so he had a compassion for those in error that would receive correction and apparently had no motive to put these to an open shame.

which again supports the idea that the problem was church (small c meaning immediate body) wide.

But we do know from evidence of the text that those that did not receive correction, proved themselves to be willful deceivers, having made a shipwreck of their faith and he outed them straight away by name (note 1 Timothy 1:19-20,

which further testifies to the idea that the woman's name would have been well know had it only been an issue with one specific woman.

"Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck: Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.")

Calvin Tyer

Notice, the specific names, the entire letters (I and II) testify to the intimacy and specific people known, not an obscure random person.

We are currently going to a church that is averaging over 350 per Sun, in two different buildings. The buildings are both located in small communities (which would mirror what we see here) (not tiny mind you, just small) People who come for the first time to the church, are known, in fact, someone will most assuradely point out the new person and mention it to the pastor and a discussion of who it was will break out. The people would have been known. The woman's name would not have been omited if only one woman was involved in the entire situation.

 

[CTyer]

and Timothy would have followed the same church discipline rules. Not to mention that such a letter would have been directed specifically to Timothy and not the church body that Timothy was over.

Right. I agree. And it WAS addressed TO Timothy and NOT to the church body that Timothy was over. (1 Timothy 1:1-2, "Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope; Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord."

But Timothy could have not to mention that Paul would have instructed him to had it been an issue that only affected the one woman. Paul would have instructed Timothy to follow church discipline if the whole body was not suffering from the issue. Not sure what your point is...

It is clear from the text in both english and greek that Paul is addressing a specific problem with a particular woman and her husband. He applies a universal understanding in reference to Genesis in that a man who knows better (such as Adam did) has the duty to protect his wife, if she is less learned than he is, from deception. Trying to force a man made rule INTO the text, that does not exist, and using that to promote a particular patriarchal agenda is where the problem is.

No, not all the varying churches, the church Timothy was overseeing. look it up the tradition of the time was to read the letter to the entire church body. Not to mention that if only Timothy read it (which obviously is wrong in that we are reading it ourselves) Paul would have instructed Timothy in church discipline not church body discipline. exactly...glad I said that.... but this also questions the conclusion of only one woman involved. If there was only one woman involved, names would have been used as we see in other of Paul's letters. He knew the people, as would Timothy have known them, intimately, they were a family. which again supports the idea that the problem was church (small c meaning immediate body) wide. which further testifies to the idea that the woman's name would have been well know had it only been an issue with one specific woman. Notice, the specific names, the entire letters (I and II) testify to the intimacy and specific people known, not an obscure random person.

Again we have no way of knowing whether or not Timothy read the entire letter to his church(es). Regardless of what tradition tells us. The fact that we are reading the entire letter now, does not mean that Timothy's church(es) had access to it then. The NT was not compiled at that time. And no, again. Paul did not name EVERYONE at all times. As well, no again we cannot legitimately make THE WOMAN mean ALL WOMEN, or SHE to mean ALL WOMEN no matter how we try if we are being prudent students and understand the basic rules of language.

[/qWe are currently going to a church that is averaging over 350 per Sun, in two different buildings. The buildings are both located in small communities (which would mirror what we see here) (not tiny mind you, just small) People who come for the first time to the church, are known, in fact, someone will most assuradely point out the new person and mention it to the pastor and a discussion of who it was will break out. The people would have been known. The woman's name would not have been omited if only one woman was involved in the entire situation.

Actually, your point serves better as evidence for what I am saying. One, no need to "out her" to everyone else because as soon as she is learned, she can teach. And two, if she is known in the body where the problem is, then it is already understood, therefore again, no need to name her and poison her future ministry to anyone else who may later read the letter.

Calvin Tyer

 

[razzelflabben]

Right. I agree. And it WAS addressed TO Timothy and NOT to the church body that Timothy was over. (1 Timothy 1:1-2, "Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope; Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord."

It is clear from the text in both english and greek that Paul is addressing a specific problem with a particular woman and her husband. He applies a universal understanding in reference to Genesis in that a man who knows better (such as Adam did) has the duty to protect his wife, if she is less learned than he is, from deception. Trying to force a man made rule INTO the text, that does not exist, and using that to promote a particular patriarchal agenda is where the problem is.

Again we have no way of knowing whether or not Timothy read the entire letter to his church(es). Regardless of what tradition tells us. The fact that we are reading the entire letter now, does not mean that Timothy's church(es) had access to it then. The NT was not compiled at that time. And no, again. Paul did not name EVERYONE at all times. As well, no again we cannot legitimately make THE WOMAN mean ALL WOMEN, or SHE to mean ALL WOMEN no matter how we try if we are being prudent students and understand the basic rules of language.

Actually, your point serves better as evidence for what I am saying. One, no need to "out her" to everyone else because as soon as she is learned, she can teach. And two, if she is known in the body where the problem is, then it is already understood, therefore again, no need to name her and poison her future ministry to anyone else who may later read the letter.

Calvin Tyer

so if we disregard the culture of the day....disregard the totality of scripture...and disregard the implications within the text, I guess you would be right.... but if we include all the above, I think you would be wrong...not necessarily wrong about the outcome of the understanding, but the process of getting there. Nothing in the text tells us that only one woman was involved...nothing in the culture of the day tells us only one woman was involved, nothing in the totality of scripture tells us only one woman was involved. What we do know from the totality of scripture is that women were not always instructed to "not teach men".

I really think you are trying too hard.

 

[CTyer]

It shouldn't have to be this hard and wouldn't be if people would understand the difference between THE WOMAN and WOMEN, and SHE verses THEY and would handle the text with integrity.

Calvin Tyer

 

[razzelflabben]

It shouldn't have to be this hard and wouldn't be if people would understand the difference between THE WOMAN and WOMEN, and SHE verses THEY and would handle the text with integrity.

Calvin Tyer

my husband studied both Hebrew and Greek, maybe I'll send him over

 

[CTyer]

Sure, send him over. The grammar won't change.

Calvin Tyer

 

[razzelflabben]

Sure, send him over. The grammar won't change.

Calvin Tyer

If you have already convinced yourself, what are any of us doing here? Are you seeking a rubber stamp, or the feeling that you are somehow enlightened? Discussion usually refers to "I'm open to what God leads you to understand as well"

 

[CTyer]

Are we now going to reduce what seemed to be a sincere discussion into nothing but ad hominem attacks? I sure hope not.
ie., a) "convinced myself" b) "seeking a rubber stamp or" c)"a feeling that you are somehow enlightened"

I don't believe I have given any indication that I am here to serve myself in any way. If I have, may God please forgive me! Further, I have not convinced myself, however a sincere study of the text convinced me to humble myself and submit to what is actually written and change what I was taught and believed for years and years. So, yes I am now coming from a position that opposes what I now believe are falsehoods and I am just offering information for anyone else who is after a sincere study. It is up to oneself to check any information given with the Scripture to see if it is true as a good Berean should always do, whether they admire the person offering the information or not. I am certainly not here seeking to be admired.

I overlooked the previous statements you made for the strawmen that they are, but now, in light of your last post, perhaps it is something I should address. You said:

so if we disregard the culture of the day....disregard the totality of scripture...and disregard the implications within the text, I guess you would be right.... but if we include all the above, I think you would be wrong...

First of all, I have certainly not disregarded the culture of the day, nor the totality of Scripture, (in fact including them actually strengthens my argument). And when you say 'implications in the text', I guess you are meaning what the side I am opposing believes they imply, not that the text itself makes those implications. I believe presupposition plays a key role in the supposed "implications of the text". Because if we study the text by what is actually written there, and we study the grammar of the text, we really cannot come to those "implications" because afaict, without a presuppositional starting point they do not exist. The grammar does not make room for the presupposition to survive, whether looked at in the Greek or in English.

Calvin Tyer

If you have already convinced yourself, what are any of us doing here? Are you seeking a rubber stamp, or the feeling that you are somehow enlightened? Discussion usually refers to "I'm open to what God leads you to understand as well"

 

[razzelflabben]

Are we now going to reduce what seemed to be a sincere discussion into nothing but ad hominem attacks? I sure hope not.
ie., a) "convinced myself" b) "seeking a rubber stamp or" c)"a feeling that you are somehow enlightened"

I don't believe I have given any indication that I am here to serve myself in any way. If I have, may God please forgive me! Further, I have not convinced myself, however a sincere study of the text convinced me to humble myself and submit to what is actually written and change what I was taught and believed for years and years. So, yes I am now coming from a position that opposes what I now believe are falsehoods and I am just offering information for anyone else who is after a sincere study. It is up to oneself to check any information given with the Scripture to see if it is true as a good Berean should always do, whether they admire the person offering the information or not. I am certainly not here seeking to be admired.

and yet your post indicated that you had no interest in learning about the grammar from someone who has studied the grammar of the text...even the experts discuss the conclusions with an open mind. I expect that if you have an opened mind, your posts will reflect that. And just for the record, I asked my husband to come over and discuss it, reading your post to him. He basically said he had no time to talk to someone whose mind was made up before it was even discussed.

I overlooked the previous statements you made for the strawmen that they are, but now, in light of your last post, perhaps it is something I should address. You said:

First of all, I have certainly not disregarded the culture of the day, nor the totality of Scripture, (in fact including them actually strengthens my argument). And when you say 'implications in the text', I guess you are meaning what the side I am opposing believes they imply, not that the text itself makes those implications. I believe presupposition plays a key role in the supposed "implications of the text". Because if we study the text by what is actually written there, and we study the grammar of the text, we really cannot come to those "implications" because afaict, without a presuppositional starting point they do not exist. The grammar does not make room for the presupposition to survive, whether looked at in the Greek or in English.

Calvin Tyer

Do you understand that Greek grammar is somewhat different than English grammar? Do you understand that the totality of scripture is important to understanding the text?

 

[CTyer]

and yet your post indicated that you had no interest in learning about the grammar from someone who has studied the grammar of the text...even the experts discuss the conclusions with an open mind. I expect that if you have an opened mind, your posts will reflect that.

I said, "sure send him over." So, where would you get the idea that I had "no interest"? I have also studied it in the Greek and the end result is the same, in fact it was in my sincere study that I HAD TO study it in the Greek, otherwise it cannot honestly be called a "sincere study."

And just for the record, I asked my husband to come over and discuss it, reading your post to him. He basically said he had no time to talk to someone whose mind was made up before it was even discussed.

Well, let's face it, he has his mind all made up at this moment doesn't he? So, it's really a pot/kettle situation, afaict. It would be good for us to discuss the content from the Greek and good for those who may be listening, imo. I don't see the harm in the discussion or see it as a waste of time.

Do you understand that Greek grammar is somewhat different than English grammar?

Well, yes and no. A singular form of a noun in Greek and a singular form of a noun in English, still follow the same rules. They are singular. And a plural form of a noun in Greek and a plural form of a noun in English still follow the same rules. They are plural.

Do you understand that the totality of scripture is important to understanding the text?

Absolutely!

Calvin Tyer

 

[razzelflabben]

I said, "sure send him over." So, where would you get the idea that I had "no interest"?

you also said the grammar won't change...a statement of close mindedness. Since the Greek grammar is different than English grammar, even though the grammar itself doesn't change, our understanding of what it means can based on what we find.

I have also studied it in the Greek and the end result is the same, in fact it was in my sincere study that I HAD TO study it in the Greek, otherwise it cannot honestly be called a "sincere study."

then there is nothing to discuss, right?

Is this sarcasm or sincere? I'm asking because it seems to contradict a few of the last things you accused me of.

I mean no accusation and if my computer had not randomly shut down when I was adding an edit you would know that. I run across people all the time that are so convinced by their own intellectual understanding that they miss God in the message. Honestly, I don't know if you fall into this catagory or not, what I do know is that you have closed your mind (according to the posts) to everything that I offered to you. Maybe you did consider them, it's possible, I would like to believe you have, but let's take the last one as an example...you show no reasoning, no evidence, no biblical reference why if this was a single woman involved,the issue was not limited to church discipline. You talked about it, but didn't show any reason why it would not. Both Paul and Timothy would have been sincere in keeping to the rules of church discipline, thus in order to dismiss this from a totality of scripture, that is scripture interprets scripture, you must show cause in scripture.

Culture is the same. I do so love this type of discussion, it forces me to think about the scripture, the meaning, the intent, scriptures as a whole, but what I cannot abide by is people who claim scripture as authority then dismiss anything in scripture that questions their wisdom, their understanding. God's wisdom confounds the wise of this world. If we misread your post, my sincere apologizes, if not, consider what I am saying to you.

Well, let's face it, he has his mind all made up at this moment doesn't he? So, it's really a pot/kettle situation, afaict. It would be good for us to discuss the content from the Greek and good for those who may be listening, imo. I don't see the harm in the discussion or see it as a waste of time. Well, yes and no. A singular form of a noun in Greek and a singular form of a noun in English, still follow the same rules. They are singular. And a plural form of a noun in Greek and a plural form of a noun in English still follow the same rules. They are plural.

Absolutely!

Calvin Tyer

No, not at all, neither of us approach any scripture assuming to know what it says, even those we have studied in depth, mostly (though there are other resons as well) because God has something new for us each time we read it.

as to the issue of grammar, there is much much more to it than that, a lot that my husband is much better at explaining than I am. There are articles and all kinds of other nuances as it were to the Greek grammar.

 

[CTyer]

you also said the grammar won't change...a statement of close mindedness. Since the Greek grammar is different than English grammar, even though the grammar itself doesn't change, our understanding of what it means can based on what we find. then there is nothing to discuss, right? I mean no accusation and if my computer had not randomly shut down when I was adding an edit you would know that.

What I meant by that was that the Grammar of the text, whether we look at it in English or in Greek will NOT support the patriarchal misuse and abuse that has occurred by those reading into the text what isn't there to support a presupposition.

I run across people all the time that are so convinced by their own intellectual understanding that they miss God in the message. Honestly, I don't know if you fall into this catagory or not, what I do know is that you have closed your mind (according to the posts) to everything that I offered to you. Maybe you did consider them, it's possible, I would like to believe you have, but let's take the last one as an example...you show no reasoning, no evidence, no biblical reference why if this was a single woman involved,the issue was not limited to church discipline. You talked about it, but didn't show any reason why it would not. Both Paul and Timothy would have been sincere in keeping to the rules of church discipline, thus in order to dismiss this from a totality of scripture, that is scripture interprets scripture, you must show cause in scripture

I didn't realize that you were interested in my repeating all of the things Timothy 2 already showed you. Which is all I would be doing as I am in complete agreement with Timothy2 and all of the exegesis she already provided.

Culture is the same. I do so love this type of discussion, it forces me to think about the scripture, the meaning, the intent, scriptures as a whole, but what I cannot abide by is people who claim scripture as authority then dismiss anything in scripture that questions their wisdom, their understanding. God's wisdom confounds the wise of this world.

And here you go again with the ad hominem swipes. That is something I don't abide too well with.

If we misread your post, my sincere apologizes, if not, consider what I am saying to you. No, not at all, neither of us approach any scripture assuming to know what it says, even those we have studied in depth, mostly (though there are other resons as well) because God has something new for us each time we read it.

Let's be honest and realistic. The only way that anyone can come into reading the Word of God with NO presuppositions whatsoever, is if one has never attended Church and been taught anything by anyone else. This would be a rarity. It is often that we are taught something, and we go to the text wearing a lens offered by a Pastor, Theologian or someone else whom we sat under and whom we admire and/or trust, whether as a teenager learning something early in life that we accepted and always thought thereafter was true or whatever and very often, at first glance, may "see" what we "already believed" to be true, but upon closer inspection and honest study of the Word with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, we see something we did not see before, that makes us go hmmm. At that point we can glaze over it, dismissing the notion that our Pastor or whoever might be wrong OR we can conduct a sincere study. It is not until that decision is made, that any of us are not assuming anything.

as to the issue of grammar, there is much much more to it than that, a lot that my husband is much better at explaining than I am. There are articles and all kinds of other nuances as it were to the Greek grammar.

I understand that, but those are key points for the Scripture in question. You didn't really think that I believe that the short statement I offered was Greek 101 in a nutshell did you? Please extend a little more credit to me than that, credit for common sense at least.

Do you think we'll be returning to the topic any time soon?

Calvin Tyer

 

[Timothy2]

We are not even told how many she was teaching in err. There is nothing indicating that she preached a service to all in attendance, or if she was teaching a couple of people things on the side, that they asked Timothy about which brought it to his attention in the first place. Any of that would have to be added to the text as it doesn't say.

As I read your recent posts I've agreed with most of what you've said. But I would like to point out some things.

The passage vv11-15 is not instructions for "husbands and wives" though the situation is about a woman who is teaching a man, who is probably her husband considering the culture of the time.

Paul stopped her from teaching "a man" therefore it can only be concluded that she taught 1 person, "a man". He didn't stop her from teaching men or men and women. Just as it can only be concluded from the passage itself that "woman" is 1 person, the same is true about "a man".

Outside of the boundaries within the passage, anything is possible. She could have taught more than just 1 man. But the point is that we don't go outside of the passage itself. So we can only say from the passage that she taught 1 person. (Anything goes or anything is possible when ANY scriptural boundaries are crossed)

The fact that Paul did not name the woman or her husband's names however, does clearly indicate that Paul was not intending to make it publicly known who they were, and the reason being that she was not a willful deceiver, but one who was in error.

Yes, and also unlike Hym and Alex, Paul said she would be saved if... So Paul did not treat her like the willful deceivers (who taught heresey).

Back to reading the present discussion...

 

[Timothy2]

Nothing in the text tells us that only one woman was involved...nothing in the culture of the day tells us only one woman was involved, nothing in the totality of scripture tells us only one woman was involved. What we do know from the totality of scripture is that women were not always instructed to "not teach men".

razzelflabben,

You are missing the point. The point is that nothing in the text tells us that there was MORE than 1 woman and 1 man and we can only conclude FROM the passage (vv11-15) itself that Paul is speaking of 1 woman and 1 man. There is no way, absolutely, no way to conclude that Paul was speaking of women and men. It is literaly, grammaticaly, contextualy, impossible according to the language/how Paul wrote the passage. It's like the passage is in an iron box. It's untouchable.

(And as an fyi, no one, no scholar has yet proved otherwise. Not CBMW, not other well known speakers/teachers within the comp camp, not Thomas Schreiner...None of them have proved otherwise or disproved the words of the passage itself. It's simply impossible.)

 

[Timothy2]

It shouldn't have to be this hard and wouldn't be if people would understand the difference between THE WOMAN and WOMEN, and SHE verses THEY and would handle the text with integrity.

Calvin Tyer

 

[razzelflabben]

razzelflabben,

You are missing the point. The point is that nothing in the text tells us that there was MORE than 1 woman and 1 man and we can only conclude FROM the passage (vv11-15) itself that Paul is speaking of 1 woman and 1 man. There is no way, absolutely, no way to conclude that Paul was speaking of women and men. It is literaly, grammaticaly, contextualy, impossible according to the language/how Paul wrote the passage. It's like the passage is in an iron box. It's untouchable.

(And as an fyi, no one, no scholar has yet proved otherwise. Not CBMW, not other well known speakers/teachers within the comp camp, not Thomas Schreiner...None of them have proved otherwise or disproved the words of the passage itself. It's simply impossible.)

And what I am suggesting is that when we apply the totality of scripture, we come to the same conclusion but with a bit different perspective on the "grammar" of the text. Why is that so hard to grasp?

 

[heymikey80]

Let me give the reminder that we are not looking at the English language here.

This is the way the Greek works:

The singular "woman" in Greek when used can mean five possible things:

1 Generic for all women
2 Symbolic
3 Singular specific woman
4 Singular specific wife
5 Generic for all wives

And the same applies for when "man" is used. Now look at the verse below:

2 Corinthians 12:2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago–whether in the body I do not know, or out of the body I do not know, God knows–such a man was caught up to the third heaven.

According to your argument that since "woman" does not have a definate article therefore it cannot mean "singular specific", therefore in 2 Co 12:2, "man" here also does not mean singular specific just because it does not have a definate article. But in the Greek, the context ALONE tells us whether or not a indefinate noun is indefinate or definate.

Now what you have not done is Prove that "woman" here in this passage is used for women in general.

How does one prove that "woman" in this passage is used for a nonspecific woman? Of course there's no way to prove it except by ... c'mon, you can say it. What's the sole way to prove it?

I haven't been talking about the English translation. I'm well aware of the Greek, and have been referring to it.

What point is Paul trying to make? Is Paul just wasting parchment here, or does he have something to say?

Adam and Eve are persons who are named. Eve is a specific person because she is identified by name. The woman of v14 is a specific person because there is a definate article.

Already addressed. Adam & Eve are used as examples supporting Paul's assertion. They're not the focus of what Paul says before. They're the support.

And your reply doesn't deal with the present tense of v14.

State what's in present tense in 1 Tim 2:14.

 

[NorrinRadd]

...
And the reason I think this is because the whole Bible speaks to a divinely established and necessary order, from Adam to the last man, which places man as the head of the woman and only that construction is consonant with this truth.

I do not see where this has been abrogated.

How do you know that said "order" is hierarchical, and how do you know that "head" necessarily implies "leader"?

I would argue that the office or function of prophet is not what Paul is talking about here. He is talking about order and governance of the church.

How are "order" and "governance" separate from "office" or "function," since it can easily be shown that the various "governance" positions are gifts of the Spirit, just as are prophets and prophecy?

Prophets and prophetesses certainly do "teach" but this is not what he's talking about, he is talking about the normal "liturgical" life of the church.

How do you know that there *is* a "liturgical" life of the church? Are you sure you are not reading into the Scriptures your own background?

 

[Timothy2]

State what's in present tense in 1 Tim 2:14.

v14
and Adam not was-seduced the yet woman being-out-seduced in beside-stepping has-become

She was in sin when Paul wrote the letter.

 

[Timothy2]

How do you know that said "order" is hierarchical, and how do you know that "head" necessarily implies "leader"?

No contextual evidence exists for kephale to mean "leader" or "authority over" in Eph 5 or 1 Co 11. (People try to say that the wife's submission in Eph shows what kephale means lol)

Hey, NorrinRadd

Nice quotes at the bottom of your profile