Craig

Hi Mark @135,
You said, “Looking at Rev 2:20 we know the ‘content’ of the teaching.”
This is similar to what i was suggesting. It makes sense that if the context shows that “false teaching” is involved (not just the “content” of it), and the writer and recipient know it is false teaching, then the normal word for “teaching” could be used and it would be understood as “false teaching”. This is the case with both Rev 2:20 and 1 Tim 2:12. The context of false teaching in the letter, the mention of deception in v14, and the fact that there is a question over her salvation, all point to the issue of false teaching in 1 Tim 2. So it is not “teaching” all by itself with no context to tell us what it is. It is not “absolute” in your definition of “absolute”. So my suggestion could still be quite valid.