netzarim said:I appreciate your teaching, Lulav
When she is learning....., but when she reaches Lulav's level then it is good for her to share what she knows..
I believe what is given should be shared. Yeshua said not to hide your light under a bushel. That light is the light we are given and it should be not kept to ourselves but shared for the benefit of others. 
?
I understand, but using the word synagogue makes it seem like they were all worshiping and learning in the local Jewish synagogue.
I understand, but as I said it was not halachic, therefore Paul's would not be either. Halacha was considered law by the Pharisees, but what you used is defiantly not. The Talmud addressed things that pertained to Jewish men and women. Paul was teaching heathens.
Yes, thus it is his own 'laws' he is enacting here, though not from G-d.
I understand, but using the word synagogue makes it seem like they were all worshiping and learning in the local Jewish synagogue.
I understand, but as I said it was not halachic, therefore Paul's would not be either. Halacha was considered law by the Pharisees, but what you used is defiantly not. The Talmud addressed things that pertained to Jewish men and women. Paul was teaching heathens. I'm not sure Timothy was a heathen. I assume 'defiantly' is a malapropism?
Yes, thus it is his own 'laws' he is enacting here, though not from G-d. That is quite possible - he had done it before. This is the exact point I was making - it was what he preferred to do, not what G_d had told him to tell Timothy. Had it been directly from G_d he would have said so. Instead be makes a rather tenuous connection to the Law in support of his view.
Correction = authority? I don't understand this point
G-d saw that man couldn't go it alone, so he created a 'helpmeet' . Yet Paul told the Romans that
Sinner entered into the world through Adam, per Paul to the Romans, so Chavah was not the first sinner. Besides, where is it written in Torah that one sins by being deceived? Because Adam was the first man and Eve came from him - therefore through Adam, sin came into the world but it was Eve (or Chavah to continue mixing your languages) who took the bite and then offered it to Adam. Deception was not the problem - they both chose to sin. Just as today people choose to sin, it is not imposed on them!
BTW, using B'rsheet 3:16 does not support this either. It does not say what you think it says. It is not usually helpful to say, 'but it doesn't say that' without saying what you think it says - that is not an argument.
Yes, I posted that right below where you said
So what I am asking if you see correction as equal to authority?
As far as 3:16, it was a comment, not an argument.Avodat said:
Suffice it to say, no one 'took a literal 'bite' of any 'fruit'. 
I'm glad you are awake now, I am still on my first cup of coffee, so no cracks about my spelling or thought process. I can't help it that I think I English and Hebrew and it comes out in my writing. This is a challenge when I play word games and wonder why Hebrew words (transliterated of course) aren't allowed!
Anyway, on to your responses.
You addressed only my typo, and that Timothy wasn't a heathen. I was not referring to Timothy when Paul spoke to the Corinthians. The point of that part, which you ignored was that this was not halakcha, neither from the Talmudic sages, or Paul. He was giving his way of handling the heathen, fishwives' who were not brought up in reverence to the Holy one.
I'm glad you see this is not G-d inspired instruction then. But there was no law then, or after, written or unwritten regarding this, at least not from what you quoted. There may be on the section regarding proselytes though.
Yes, I posted that right below where you said
So what I am asking if you see correction as equal to authority?
That is quite a twisting to reconcile two views of Paul on women. Now you make them one to prove your point. If deception was not the problem then why did you say it was because she was deceived?
As far as 3:16, it was a comment, not an argument.
I'm not trying to argue Paul's view of women, just what is being used to justify it. Punctuation aside, using Genesis 3:16 (sorry, I thought I was in a MJ forum and that both references would be understood) to substantiate Paul's comments to Timothy, doesn't wash. What you are saying now is that Paul is actually referring to the Torah and specifically Genesis 3:16 to support him? That would make sense except he says that He does not allow.
Genesis 3:16 does not say that women should be submissive to their husbands, this has caused the brutality and death of many a women to understand it that way.
What it does say is that her desire should be towards her husband, (and no one else). Not subjection, desire.
