Mark

Sue,

But again there are more problems. You told us that your motivation was to live and not be under male authority, and know you relate that to ‘moral guidelines’. I don’t see the connection!

I could equally argue that i am governed by moral guidelines- that really means nothing. What we should be governed by is the Word of God- that is the only place where true morals can be formed, otherwise they are not morals at all. You can’t approach the Bible with a 21st century ‘moral guideline framework’- it doesn’t work that way- it should be the opposite.

I think your first answer seemed far more honest and open. Being under authority is not accepted nowadays, and in some places rightly so, but i don’t think you can only connect your view as morally right and the comp not.

Again regards lexicons, if you don’t trust any, how can you possibly give any explanation for anything. It seems like you have just undercut your own research- why would i trust you? How do i know you aren’t just making up your own terminology or meanings if they are not inline with other relevant scholars.

I think your insistence to disregard BDAG is unwarranted. They cover the koine period as their focus. The question we need to ask is whether their definitions fit the context. Of course they do, they are just repulsive to our generation- that’s the only difference. Does ‘source’ fit the context? In many places not at all- that’s why many egals switch between source and ‘beginning’ and ‘preeminance’, which are totally different meanings. And then we need to ask whether the few lexicons that offer another alternatives can rightly be considered as covering the relevant time frame accurately.

I think we need to steer away from the open hermenuetic mind field. There are not 2 possible meanings to Paul’s teachings. I would have thought that the research you have put into the New Testament, you would have realised the amount of divergents, ducking and re-interpretation of passages, words, meanings goes into the egal position. If it was ‘so obvious’ why did the early church miss it- the natural greek speakers. Why aren’t the fathers writings in line with the egal position? Did they misunderstand the meanings of words from their own time?

This is why i struggle. Many egals claim that the church has just been patriarchal, but yet then claim that the very words of the New Testament shout for egalitarianism. How can the two co-incide. Either they were just patriarchs, or they misunderstood their own language. I don’t see how you can argue the two.