Don

The Greek aischron is a very strong word, it is euphemized in most English translations.

Eph 5:11

Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.

Eph 5:12

For it is shameful even to speak of the things that they do in secret.

1Co 11:6

For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head.

These are indications that in BOTH these cases the words in 1 Cor are not from Paul, would he call a believing woman filty?  I do not believe it.

That is pretty incredible.  It is their choice what they sell and how they sell it, but it does show their attitude.

I do not see your premise being proven, you are the one asserting it and when I point out where it is not true, you claim I misuderstood.

1. You need to clearly state what you are asserting.  This includes examples and counterexamples.
2. You need to show it is true.  It is not up to others to show it is false, since it is you that are asserting it.

Every law given to everyone (sometimes worded as being given to gentiles) is repeated to Israel, so your claim is true as you have asked the question in a way to ensure it is always true.  Some may not know about these distinctions about laws for gentiles and laws for Israel.

Giving a law to everyone and giving it to Israel is a different audience, it is not repeated to everyone.  There are only a few laws that are given to everyone.

What the non-egals are being in regards to 1 Tim 2:12 is arrogant, altho they do not realize it as they are deceived.  They are asserting something is clear that is not at all clear.  That is why I try to use my tactic, to get them to see they are making choices, as they do not even see that due to the deception involved.

On non-egals, I think they do a LEGITIMATE application, given their exegesis, it is their exegesis that I disagree with.

I think trying to make 1 Tim 2:12 not apply because for some reason it does not comform to a law is not a good tactic, since I am not even following the argument.

My tactic is to point out how much uncertainty is involved with the whole pericope, so how can they be so certain that their many choices are correct?  The answer is they cannot be.  This allows them to see that they are making interpretive choices and that they do not need to make those choices, and should not based on the witness of the rest of Scripture.

(Gen 9:4)

But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.

This is a command that is given to everyone.  Later it is given to Israel also, but it is not given to everyone again as far as I can tell.

Who said she could not speak there?

For me, nomos/law in the most general sense is Torah, which are God’s word, the 66 books of the Bible as we carve them up today.  It is all God’s instruction, given for our benefit.

Sharp divide between the law and the promise?  I assume you are talking about the 2 Mosaic covenants and the 3 Abrahamic covenants.

The statements to Timothy and the woman at Ephesus are relevant to us.  They are NOT just for one person only.  For example, as Timothy was a believer and a leader, we know that statements like “No believer should drink alcohol.” or “No church leader should drink alcohol.” are not Biblical, as they have a counter-example.  On the woman, if someone is deceived and sins, it can be appropriate to teach them rather than expelling them from church and see what happens; while being taught, it can make sense that they should not teach.

This sounds to me like one can craft a definition so carefully that it may just be the case that it is true by definition.

So I will start over.

1. God gives commands to do and not do things, to individuals, groups and everyone.
2. These commands do not need to be stated twice to be valid, stating them once is enough.

Exo 21:10  If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights.
Exo 21:11  And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.

I can only find this once.

Exo 19:15  And he said to the people, “Be ready for the third day; do not go near a woman.”

I can only find this once.

Gen 22:12  He said, “Do not lay your hand on the boy or do anything to him, for now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me.”

I can only find this once.

I am not sure what you mean by “universal law”.  If a law is given to just one person it is still a law.

Also, a law may be a prohibition or a command to do something.

I can agree with Paul also, he was not referring to law necessarily.

Gen 2:15  The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it.

I can only find this once, but it is still true.

I do not see that there is no law in Scripture that is not repeated.

Jesus needed multiple witnesses to his claims, this is a part of proving something in a legal sense.  The same is true for showing someone broke a law, you need multiple witnesses.

But the law itself does not need to be repeated to be a law.  Some are repeated, some are not as far as I can tell.

1. My understanding is that later written Scripture cannot contradict earlier written Scripture and this is true throughout the Bible.  This is related to the idea of progressive revelation.

Of course, they need to be understood in context, text out of context might appear to contradict other text.  When you find an apparent contradiction, it is a big clue that you need to dig for more context to better understand one or both texts.

2. It only takes one statement for a law to be a law.  Some things are written many times in Scripture, some only once; they are all true.

What you do is find it in the oral law.  There are papers that do that.  Paul was against the Judaizers.

I have my analysis of 1 Cor 14 somewhere I will post on ECA blog.

Yes, I think 1 Cor 11 and 1 Cor 14 have quotes from Corinth; they make the discussion make sense; otherwise Paul contradicts himself.  It is seeing these as  quotes that made me realize Paul was egal.

The oldest manuscripts are in UNICIAL, all caps, no spaces and no punctuation or accents, at least as far as I know.

One cannot do this quoting insight with 1 Tim (and Titus).

ESV 1Co 14:34  the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says.

The masculinist ESV wants to claim it is the Torah, but it is not.  It is the oral law, and the clue is the word “says”, this is not the way Scripture is referred to, which is “It is written” or similar.  At the time of Jesus and Paul the traditions of the Pharisees were oral and not written down, later they were written down in the Mishnah around 200 AD.  IMO, the Mishnah is essential to know the context of some NT passages.

Do Ware and Burk get a complimentary copy?

When you can, give us a hint at the final table contents.

Submit and obey are not synonyms.

However, based on the Eph 5-6 pericope, I believe that obey can be an EXAMPLE of submission in SOME contexts, like child to parent and slave to master (today, employee to employer).  Such obedience is always limited as we are to obey God first.  But it is still there.  However, it is not there in the relationship of wife and husband and this omission is to be noticed.

This is why the mutual submission METAPHOR is useful for me, when 2 are PERFECTLY mutually submitted, then there is only one UNIFIED will.  If this does not work for you, that is OK with me, but it works for me.

On one will, I wonder if this is like one God.  God is echad, a plural unity (like the USA in some ways).  This is why I find the mutual submission metaphor helpful, it may not be helpful to others.

Very good insights.  We are SUPPOSED to notice what Scripture says and what it does not say.

Another question is: Who is the Spirit of Christ?  Is this the same Spirit as the Spirit of God?  I think it must be.

My take is that all descriptions of God are metaphors.  One way to describe God is to say there is one will called God’s will.  Another way is to say there is mutual submission among the persons of the Trinity.  These are just different ways the Bible uses of explaining the same thing to our finite minds.

Jesus in the wilderness was LED by the Spirit, so I do not know how that fits with a hierarchical Trinity.

Joseph’s dreams have symbols interpreted by Jacob that say his father and mother would bow to him.  Bowing represents submission.  Joseph is a type of Christ.  But who does his father represent?  IMO, this shows mutual submission.  P.S. The Holy Spirit in Hebrew is grammatical feminine gender.