Dave

Mark, “C’mon mate, let’s be realisitic” is not a valid argument…especially when I am realistic! Kay responded on my behalf with regards to you first point. Thanks Kay, Mark did miss the point.

I should add that I do not see you as the ‘enemy’ Mark. You said, “I do think it is ok for women to co lead for example a bible study with their husband in private”.

Where in scripture do you get this from? I have been in Bible Studies with as many as 15-20 regular people attending – sounds like a 1st century church.. Is that still ok? Also, is that really in private? How are you Biblically defining ‘private’? Are we just expected to accept this view of yours?

You said, “The context of 1 Tim illustrates why this is related to public congregational setting. The scriptures also teach the responsibilty of the elders, that they are to be able to teach and that they did in fact teach. No where in scripture is it stated or shown that people outside of that sphere had the responsibility that elders had. Deacons did not, women did not. It was only for specific men to fulfill that role. This is plain scriptural fact, not legalism. As i said your proof cases actually prove my case and do nothing to challenge the comp interpretation of 1 Tim”.

1 Tim makes no mention of only Elders teaching and having authority over anyone, men or women. There is no reason in the text to believe that the situation is more than something that was happening at the Church. If so, please show me. The Bible does not teach the responsibilities of Elders (if you are referring to 1 Tim 3), but rather what a person who aspires to being an Elder should already be able to do, or rather already be doing. An Elder should be someone who is already ‘apt to teach’ before they are an Elder. To say more is to read into the passage. Your plain scriptural fact is not what you claim…plain, scriptural or factual! My proof case does what I claim. Stephen was not an Elder and he preached. He exegeted the Word of God. Read Acts for yourself. He was not handing out “Two Ways To Live” leaflets. If preaching is only to Christians then I do not know if I have ever preached. Not sure how they do it in your church, do you test people before you preach and only the ones who can respond with correct answers to the shorter catechism stay and listen? Look at what you are suggesting Mark, it does not make logical sense.

You said, “I don’t need to try and prove Cheryl’s exegesis wrong…it is wrong. No serious evangelical scholar considers it likely. It is based on assumptions and historical revisionism foremost, ignores the evidence of authentein, ignores the syntax parallels, ignores the positive use of ‘teach’ used always in the NT (except once in Titus where the immediate context shows it is false teaching), ignores that the singular can be generic (seen in Titus 1 where Paul switches from plural to singular similar to verse 11), ignores that Paul twice uses a different verb for ‘false teaching’ in the same epistle yet not here, assumes such a person existed, assumes this person was married, assumes this passage refers to them…the list goes on”.

Why, if Cheryl’s exegesis is wrong, is it so hard for you to prove it. No serious evangelical scholar says “I do not need to prove it wrong because it is wrong”.Remember last time you were here? You had nothing, though you claimed to have everything. I am an evangelical scholar, and I believe I am serious most of the time and I consider it likely. Problem for you is that I have not heard an exegetical scholar, comical or otherwise who has proved it incorrect. I, and I assume Cheryl, would love more to try as we are seeking the truth.

It appears as though you are ignoring some of the evidence of authentein, but Cheryl’s exegesis does not rest heavily on the meaning of this word anyway. What ‘syntax parallels are you referring to? Why do you discount the possible use of a negative use of teach when you can also cite an example of it? Correct, context is key, and Cheryl has shown how the context supports a negative use of ‘teach’. What verse in Titus 1 were you referring to?, you recognise that the context of the epistle has to do with false teaching (well done there!), Paul says such a person existed (it is not assumed), no one has assumed the person was married (the exegesis does not rest on this), yes, we are trying to understand the passage that is talking about two (or more) people…your list of ‘up the garden path leading’ claims goes on. Mark either deal with it properly or not at all. That reminds me, are you ready yet to offer your own understanding of this passage or does that continue to allude you!

In answer to your question, I have not read all of that book.
Finally, you said, “Final point Dave, i agree with you about Stephen. He did evangelise the Jews…i said that. But you have failed to show how that effects my view of 1 Tim 2, or how it effects the NT teaching on eldership”.

Yes I have, it is just that you refuse to accept it and dismiss it without showing why.