Dave

Mark, in regards to your Hamburger quote, I agree with him. We cannot assume that Paul thinks teaching is positive or negative, and as we cannot (I assume) agree with authentein we have to see if there is something else in the passage to tell us whether or not Paul views teaching in THIS CONTEXT as negative. It is fair to say that under the circumstances Paul is addressing he sees it as negative, because he does not permit it.

Now, for you Mark I assume you will say that he does not permit it because a woman should not teach a man. Please note that this is ASSUMED. What we do know is that every time that Paul views teaching as negative in other contexts it is false teaching.

Your Titus example proves nothing. Yes, Paul uses a plural in 1:5 and switches to a singular in 1:7. We would do the same in English. Why? Because Paul has said he has left Titus to appoint Elders (plural). Then in 1:7 Paul outlines what is required for each one of these Elders.

This is different to what is happening in the 1 Tim passage. (Please note that when I said, “ In 6:10-11” I made a typo. I was not talking about ch 6 either…Titus does not have a chap 6! I meant 1:10-11). I 1 Tim 2 if it is a generic sing then it does not make sense.

Mark, you said, “Well that’s her assertion isn’t it. I would have thought a plural in verse 10 and then the singular in verse 11 is exactly the proof of a generic singular. Her assertion is simply that…an assertion.”

Sorry, not following. I see no proof, you will have to be more specific.

Mark, you said, “This is simple false Dave. Paul’s appeal back to creation (13, 14) has always been understood as granting more than a specific situation that needs to be addressed. His prohibition is rooted in the creation order. You may disagree wtih that, but your above assertion is a little overstated. Can we therefore say that ‘a woman false teacher’ is now aloud to authentein a man in our generation?”

Once again you take me where I am not going Mark. I take eternal truths from the way I understand the passage. I take it as a continuing principle that if we are not to be deceived we should be taught. I also take it that when we are taught we should listen, and not be argumentative. Why would I say that a woman false teacher was ok today? Paul has said it was not ok then and I believe it is not ok now. All I am saying is that Paul is dealing with a situation in Ephesus, and so what he has written needs to be understood in that context. THEN we can determine how it applies today.

So in regards to Schriener I believe that the passage tells us there was a specific situation that Paul was dealing with, but I believe that there are things in it that are normative for today, and therefore I believe it contains ‘directives’ for the church today.

Mark, you said, “Dave, final point. I am interested to know that if you think there is nothing IN THE TEXT to show it is more than cultural and contextual to the time, what do you find IN THE TEXT’S that prohibits homosexuality as wrong today? Remember, FROM THE TEXT. Please apply your own theory to this practice. I want to see how consistent you are.”

Speaking of moot points, this is one. I have not said that it is not relevant for today. Please make an attempt to understand me Mark. I gave you two examples, one of Timothy drinking wine and the Corinthians getting drunk on the Supper. I did that to highlight that we need to understand BOTH the local context of the passage AND then how it applies to us. I grow tired of having to defend myself against accusations regarding to things I have not said.

Now where is your exegesis? You will find it difficult to move anywhere in this discussion until you do. For example you believe that Paul appeals to creation as to why a woman should not teach a man, and yet you need to show some exegesis to back this up. Cheryl’s exegesis deals with this and shows that Paul is simply using an example to explain that ignorance leads to deception.
This actually fits in with the context!