Comments on: Round 2 Interview with the Apostle Paul http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2009/03/19/round-2-interview-with-paul/ This blog is for dialogue on the issue of women in ministry and the freedom for women to teach the bible in a public setting. It is also for questions and answers on our DVD entitled "Women in Ministry: Silenced or Set Free?" This 4 DVD set answers the hard passages of scripture that seem to restrict women's ministry. Mon, 15 Mar 2010 02:56:21 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: Cheryl Schatz http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2009/03/19/round-2-interview-with-paul/comment-page-1/#comment-5917 Cheryl Schatz Fri, 20 Mar 2009 17:10:03 +0000 http://strivetoenter.com/wim/?p=912#comment-5917 Greg, Thanks for the encouragement!! Don, <blockquote>Then you have an anomaly with 1 Tim 2:12. But if there is a single command anywhere else, you do not and have failed to show your claim.</blockquote> This is exactly what I have challenged many to do. I have never even seen one command that is not repeated. So I challenge people to show me a universal command that is not repeated because I can find the repeat quite easily. At this point I have never been shown a universal command that has no second witness. This does make 1 Timothy 2:12 to be an anomaly and this should raise a huge red flag to those who desire to know the truth. We need to ask ourselves why there would be just one command that has no second witness. It is a true universal command or have we misunderstood what Paul is saying? Frank, Amen and amen! Greg,
Thanks for the encouragement!!

Don,

Then you have an anomaly with 1 Tim 2:12. But if there is a single command anywhere else, you do not and have failed to show your claim.

This is exactly what I have challenged many to do. I have never even seen one command that is not repeated. So I challenge people to show me a universal command that is not repeated because I can find the repeat quite easily. At this point I have never been shown a universal command that has no second witness. This does make 1 Timothy 2:12 to be an anomaly and this should raise a huge red flag to those who desire to know the truth. We need to ask ourselves why there would be just one command that has no second witness. It is a true universal command or have we misunderstood what Paul is saying?

Frank,
Amen and amen!

]]> By: Frank http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2009/03/19/round-2-interview-with-paul/comment-page-1/#comment-5916 Frank Fri, 20 Mar 2009 16:53:47 +0000 http://strivetoenter.com/wim/?p=912#comment-5916 After I wrote my comment the other day, referring to the testimony of Hebrews 2:2-4 to the Scriptural rule that every word of testimony or declaration must be confirmed by two or more witnesses, out of curiosity, I consulted the Expositor's Bible Commentary on Hebrews and the NIV Application on Hebrews, curious as to the "scholarly" understanding of this passage. The only difference of opinion seems to have been if the author had two or three witnesses in mind in this "courtroom" scene. According to one understanding of Heb. 2:2-4, there are two witnesses, the Apostles, and then God the Father, who confirms Jesus and his message to the world by signs and wonders done among them, and to the church by the granting it the Spirit and his gifts. But according to the other understanding of this passage, which is viewed as being Trinitarian in nature, much like 1 Cor. 12:1-12, it is both God the Father and the Holy Spirit who, in confirmation of Jesus and his message as divinely approved, are the "divine" witnesses who take the stand in the courtroom of the universe. But in either interpretation the Scriptural rule of confirmation by two or more witnesses is still upheld. Nice to know the scholars agree with us, eh? After I wrote my comment the other day, referring to the testimony of Hebrews 2:2-4 to the Scriptural rule that every word of testimony or declaration must be confirmed by two or more witnesses, out of curiosity, I consulted the Expositor’s Bible Commentary on Hebrews and the NIV Application on Hebrews, curious as to the “scholarly” understanding of this passage. The only difference of opinion seems to have been if the author had two or three witnesses in mind in this “courtroom” scene. According to one understanding of Heb. 2:2-4, there are two witnesses, the Apostles, and then God the Father, who confirms Jesus and his message to the world by signs and wonders done among them, and to the church by the granting it the Spirit and his gifts. But according to the other understanding of this passage, which is viewed as being Trinitarian in nature, much like 1 Cor. 12:1-12, it is both God the Father and the Holy Spirit who, in confirmation of Jesus and his message as divinely approved, are the “divine” witnesses who take the stand in the courtroom of the universe. But in either interpretation the Scriptural rule of confirmation by two or more witnesses is still upheld. Nice to know the scholars agree with us, eh?

]]> By: Don http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2009/03/19/round-2-interview-with-paul/comment-page-1/#comment-5915 Don Fri, 20 Mar 2009 16:50:09 +0000 http://strivetoenter.com/wim/?p=912#comment-5915 Doug: Hmmm…I can’t think of any. It seems to me that all laws were repeated. This is a claim that needs to be demonstrated and not just claimed as "seems to me". That is, if you believe this to be true, go thru every command and find its repeat. Then you have an anomaly with 1 Tim 2:12. But if there is a single command anywhere else, you do not and have failed to show your claim. Doug: Hmmm…I can’t think of any. It seems to me that all laws were repeated.

This is a claim that needs to be demonstrated and not just claimed as “seems to me”. That is, if you believe this to be true, go thru every command and find its repeat. Then you have an anomaly with 1 Tim 2:12. But if there is a single command anywhere else, you do not and have failed to show your claim.

]]> By: Greg Anderson http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2009/03/19/round-2-interview-with-paul/comment-page-1/#comment-5909 Greg Anderson Fri, 20 Mar 2009 03:30:17 +0000 http://strivetoenter.com/wim/?p=912#comment-5909 Once again Cheryl, great stuff !! Man, I sure wouldn't want to go up against you as a prosecuting attorney in court. As soon as you gave closing arguments and declared that the defense rests, I'd darn sure be doing some serious damage control. Once again Cheryl, great stuff !! Man, I sure wouldn’t want to go up against you as a prosecuting attorney in court. As soon as you gave closing arguments and declared that the defense rests, I’d darn sure be doing some serious damage control.

]]> By: pinklight http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2009/03/19/round-2-interview-with-paul/comment-page-1/#comment-5905 pinklight Fri, 20 Mar 2009 00:50:16 +0000 http://strivetoenter.com/wim/?p=912#comment-5905 Ofcourse they can break the law or permit women to do so because they are the law makers. ;P Ofcourse they can break the law or permit women to do so because they are the law makers. ;P

]]> By: pinklight http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2009/03/19/round-2-interview-with-paul/comment-page-1/#comment-5904 pinklight Fri, 20 Mar 2009 00:40:28 +0000 http://strivetoenter.com/wim/?p=912#comment-5904 'It would be giving permission by a man to do something that apparently God forbids.' Okay, this point is comical, Cheryl! Comp: Women are not to teach men as it is God's law that they do not, but men may break God's Law by allowing women to teach other men. LOL!!! ‘It would be giving permission by a man to do something that apparently God forbids.’

Okay, this point is comical, Cheryl!

Comp: Women are not to teach men as it is God’s law that they do not, but men may break God’s Law by allowing women to teach other men.

LOL!!!

]]> By: Cheryl Schatz http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2009/03/19/round-2-interview-with-paul/comment-page-1/#comment-5903 Cheryl Schatz Fri, 20 Mar 2009 00:25:09 +0000 http://strivetoenter.com/wim/?p=912#comment-5903 Frank, Your application is faultless! You have taken what I taught and applied it exactly how scripture supports this concept. Bravo! Frank,

Your application is faultless! You have taken what I taught and applied it exactly how scripture supports this concept. Bravo!

]]> By: Frank http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2009/03/19/round-2-interview-with-paul/comment-page-1/#comment-5902 Frank Fri, 20 Mar 2009 00:10:46 +0000 http://strivetoenter.com/wim/?p=912#comment-5902 Cheryl, this second "interview" with Paul is just as good as the first, and the Scriptural rule that any testimony must be confirmed by two or more witnesses couldn't have been explained better. And I think your comments on the debate between Jesus and the Pharisees confirms that this rule does not only apply to "legal pronouncements," but to even the proclamation of the Gospel itself. Consider what the author of Hebrews says on this matter: "Since the message spoken through angels was binding, and every violation and disobedience received its just punishment, how shall we escape if we ignore so great a salvation? This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him. God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will" (Heb. 2:2-4, TNIV). Here the Gospel of God's Present and Future Kingdom, first proclaimed by our Lord Jesus is confirmed 1) by the Apostles, who were eyewitnesses of all he said and did, and so knew what Jesus proclaimed; 2) by God the Father, who performed signs and wonders in heaven and on earth, showing that Jesus was indeed the Messiah and that his message had divine approval; and 3) the Gospel proclaimed by Christ was further confirmed by coming of the Spirit and his gifting everyone who believed and lived by that message. So here is a most powerful example of a message or testimony being confirmed as true and binding by the three most important witnesses to appear on any witness stand. Cheryl, this second “interview” with Paul is just as good as the first, and the Scriptural rule that any testimony must be confirmed by two or more witnesses couldn’t have been explained better. And I think your comments on the debate between Jesus and the Pharisees confirms that this rule does not only apply to “legal pronouncements,” but to even the proclamation of the Gospel itself. Consider what the author of Hebrews says on this matter: “Since the message spoken through angels was binding, and every violation and disobedience received its just punishment, how shall we escape if we ignore so great a salvation? This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him. God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will” (Heb. 2:2-4, TNIV). Here the Gospel of God’s Present and Future Kingdom, first proclaimed by our Lord Jesus is confirmed 1) by the Apostles, who were eyewitnesses of all he said and did, and so knew what Jesus proclaimed; 2) by God the Father, who performed signs and wonders in heaven and on earth, showing that Jesus was indeed the Messiah and that his message had divine approval; and 3) the Gospel proclaimed by Christ was further confirmed by coming of the Spirit and his gifting everyone who believed and lived by that message. So here is a most powerful example of a message or testimony being confirmed as true and binding by the three most important witnesses to appear on any witness stand.

]]> By: Cheryl Schatz http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2009/03/19/round-2-interview-with-paul/comment-page-1/#comment-5893 Cheryl Schatz Thu, 19 Mar 2009 21:58:41 +0000 http://strivetoenter.com/wim/?p=912#comment-5893 Looks like Paul will be around a little bit longer on 1 Timothy 2:12 to answer a few more questions ;) Looks like Paul will be around a little bit longer on 1 Timothy 2:12 to answer a few more questions ;)

]]> By: Cheryl Schatz http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2009/03/19/round-2-interview-with-paul/comment-page-1/#comment-5892 Cheryl Schatz Thu, 19 Mar 2009 21:57:50 +0000 http://strivetoenter.com/wim/?p=912#comment-5892 Lin, This is a good question, but if the patriarchists are correct, which part of 1 Timothy 2:12 permits a woman to teach a man in the presence of another man? It would be giving permission by a man to do something that apparently God forbids. The real issue is how patriarchal types can give a woman the ability to teach at all. As far as spirituality goes, it appears to be case closed. Of course we know that women can teach other women how to clean the house and love their husbands. :) Lin,
This is a good question, but if the patriarchists are correct, which part of 1 Timothy 2:12 permits a woman to teach a man in the presence of another man? It would be giving permission by a man to do something that apparently God forbids.

The real issue is how patriarchal types can give a woman the ability to teach at all. As far as spirituality goes, it appears to be case closed. Of course we know that women can teach other women how to clean the house and love their husbands. :)

]]> By: Lin http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2009/03/19/round-2-interview-with-paul/comment-page-1/#comment-5891 Lin Thu, 19 Mar 2009 21:47:47 +0000 http://strivetoenter.com/wim/?p=912#comment-5891 Cheryl, What about the argument that Priscilla was teaching under her husband's authority. AFter all, he was there while she was teaching Apollos. Cheryl, What about the argument that Priscilla was teaching under her husband’s authority. AFter all, he was there while she was teaching Apollos.

]]>