Posted on 09/22/2017 9:41:26 PM PDT by Olog-hai
When did Catholics “abscond” with the Old Testament? I’m Catholic educated and no such thing is taught. It is the Jewish Bible - the Torah and we all know that.
That would make it the word of man and not of God.
“One in Christ” (which is positional regarding union with the Saviour and security in Him), and polity and order in the church are two different things entirely.
Especially female scholars...lol....wonder if she is a lesbian?....
Had to read 4:1 “But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons,...”
sigh.
Well, I believe anything I read in a publication as deeply Christian as The Daily Telegraph! Who could be a better authority on Christian texts? /off sarc
To answer the question, though, I’d trust the Serpent, before the Telegraph. They may be more “conservative” than other British rags, but that’s a very relative proposition.
That won't stop them from trying, though.
1Tim 2:12
IMHO, the real issue is one of the human spirit.
God gives each believer unique spiritual gifts, not necessarily given to other believers.
The spiritual gift of pastor-teacher is recorded in Scripture as being given to men only. Women might have the ability to teach, but the spiritual gift, where God communicates with a Pastor-Teacher, in a spiritual fashion, how the best way to communicate to another believer is his duties as a pastor-teacher.
Women who seek the position, tend to be very worldly in their lusts, seeking power and control. There are excluded from consideration simply by that weakness.
An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul’s Letters
“Man and Woman in Christ”
21.86 one amazon
for those that want to know the guy’s actual arguments
I always figure that knowing your opponent fully makes for the best counter arguments with them.
You can’t argue with Catholics on what makes scripture authentic. To a Catholic it’s authentic only because of “tradition” (which ignores that establishing a “tradition” could have been wrong), which leaves it as errant if Catholics did not adopt it. It’s a circular sort of “proof”.
I do not consider him an opponent. I wanted to know how likely it was his intepretation of the mark in the margain was correct. Since I have no expertise in textual critism I have no idea of the technical merits of his intepretation as opposed to textual critics that think the verse genuine. So I decided to see if he had an interest in the issue outside of his technical analysis that might have biased him. And I found he not only has taken sides long ago, but was heavily invested in the side his technical critism favored. I prefer expert witnesses without a dog in the fight.
“And I found he not only has taken sides long ago, but was heavily invested in the side his technical critism favored. I prefer expert witnesses without a dog in the fight.”
Actually, regardless of publishing dates of the author’s various works, it is actually a chicken versus the egg question as to whether the author’s “bias” or his analysis of scripture - which caused disagreement with traditional translations/interpretations - came first. I am sure the one scriptural reference this article proceeds from is not a singular foundation of or singular scriptural disagreement he has formed.
I am NOT defending the author’s position.
I am only challenging your view that all the author had was a bias that preceded any scriptural, textual analysis and critique he did. Yet, that process might have in fact led, in his view, to his “bias”. He would not be the first scholar whose route to disagreement with traditional views took that course. Again, I say that not to validate the view of the author. Interpreting scripture in error is as old as Christianity.
I am considering the force of a new piece of evidence. I have not the means to evaluate it myself, so I observe those who do.
Now if an expert who was neutral or in the opposed camp before he saw the evidence came along and that piece of evidence made him switch his stance, I would take that as an affirmation to the strength of the evidence.
However in this case the expert was heavily into a camp for decades and wrote books and outspoken about it BEFORE he saw this new bit of evidence in question...which did not just come to him, but which he found himself.
In this latter case, it is certainly plausible that the expert has always been right to be firmly in the one camp rather than the other. And further it is quite plausible the expert sought and found strong evidence and is now presenting it.
But I don't know of any other experts agreeing or switching sides over this strong evidence. If it were what the guy was looking for, I would expect him to be able to change minds.
Thus in conclusion, the new evidence doesn't have much weight one way or another with a reasonable person that does not have the expertise to personally evaluate it. I have to rely on the experts, but I still get to use common sense. I want to see experts switch their opinions over the evidence before I will give the evidence weight.
My critique is that I am doubtful (a) this latest piece of “evidence” is the only foundation for his view, and (b) also that it is not one of many other “translations” and “interpretations” - which he mentions in earlier writing - that also formed his view. In all truth, we don’t know if before her EVER started into scriptural and textual critique of scriptures - long ago - he already had his bias - with no prior such scholarly exploration - or of it formed during that process.
Again, that is not to confirm his conclusions.
If it were my responsibility to determine if scripture prohibits women talking in a Church, to be sure I ought increase the scope of my investigation beyond the scope of the article, and consider other evidence on all sides.
However, no matter what conclusion I would theoretically have eventually reached, it would remain true that the article was cheesy in that it was exaggerating the significance of this latest discovery by omitting pertinent information....so I felt compelled to inform people about what a quick web search turned up lest others be deceived by this omission.
This is “deconstructionism” and “close reading.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.