Chris

Paula,

[P1] does not imply [P2]. [P2] and [P3], by modus ponens, implies [P4]. The warrant for [P3] should be obvious: The causal ‘gar’ in 1 Tim 2:13. Understanding my argument requires some understanding of the patriarchalist view. So, I’m asking you to accept some things to see where the internal logic of the view leads, and why Cheryl isn’t going to make much headway with her two witnesses requirement when speaking with patriarchalists.

I only grant [P1] for the sake of showing the logic of the patriarchalist argument. It is an assumption, the purpose of which is to show how patriarchalists can derive the conclusion that the OT teaches [P1] as well as the NT. Paula, you have misunderstood my argument.

Speaking of logic, it is ad hominem to call me a “male supremacist” and conceited.