Finally, alot of your other points are really quite off topic from my initial discussion, so i’ll avoid engaging with them for the sake of simplicity and clarity. I would ask you again, however, to be careful of the many straw men you are attacking. Here are some examples to show you what i mean.

47- “Perhaps it would be an appropriate time to ask why one should assume that Paul was stopping the truth of the gospel in verse 12 rather than applying his stated purpose to have Timothy stop the teaching of error?”

I never said Paul was stopping the truth of the gospel in verse 12, that is your assumption. I did say Paul was putting some sort of prohibition on women teaching. I never said he was stopping the truth of the gospel. The two are not necessarily compatible.

49- “Actually that is not true regarding any permanent limiting of the gift. While only two or three are to speak in one meeting so that the edification of the church can happen unhindered, the one with the gift is free to speak at another time as there is no permanent injunction.”

I never said Paul was imparting a ‘permanent’ injunction on the gift of tongues.

49- “This is completely unlike the tradition that stops the teaching of the truth of the gospel for the common good.”

Here you parallel the false argument that i did not give (permanent injunction) with some sort of tradition that you are describing. Given the context, it’s obviously meant to be negative which is all the more troubling when you apply an argument to me that i myself did not give.

49- “Encouragement to release the gifts by asking God for the corresponding gift in no way corresponds to a universal prohibition of a gift for the benefit of males.”

Again you attack an argument i did not make. I never said there was a universal prohibition on the gift of tongues.

I highlight this because it can become frustrating and difficult to try and engage over a blog when straw men are constantly employed.

Blessings