Do you actually READ what I write? I mean, really? Several times I've had to repeat myself because you say I said this or that when I didn't, or didn't say this or that when I did.
You said "You appeal to the common arguments of women being inferior (culture), etc etc but no where in your post do you mention the fact that Paul cites none of these as reasons for preventing women teach in churches."
I do NOT appeal to those arguments. Every time I have mentioned them it has been to say whether a woman is stronger or weaker or smarter or dumber or so forth has NOTHING to do with whether she can lead or must submit.
Ok I'll take a closer look at what you said in the following (my emphasis in bold)
1 Cor 14:34-35 Two comments on this- first, most scholars agree that this verse was probably added by later editors of the text, because in various manuscripts it is located in several places (here or at the end of the chapter being most common). These two verses in this place seem to break up an otherwise coherent thought bridging vv 33 and 36. Secondly, scholars generally agree that the presence of temples in Corinth in which women played a prominent role by giving "prophetic utterances" may have lead to similar practices finding there way into the local churches as pagans converted to Christ. It is highly possible at least that these verses are meant to address a very specific and very local issue, which would have been highly disruptive.
it's possible but we know it's not since Paul's reasoning (Eve before Adam in the creation account of Genesis) which goes beyond and outside of any "specific and local issues" and steps over any boundaries of cultural reasons.
1 Timothy 2:12-3:12 In 1 Tim 1:3 Paul reveals that Timothy is located in Ephesus, which is the destination of this letter accordingly. As we know from Acts 19, Ephesus is the location of the pagan temple of Artemis. Artemis was the pagan godess of childbirth, virginity and fertility. This should shed some light on 2:15. As in Corinth, women played a prominent role in the local pagan worship. This may explain why women were excluded from leadership in the local Christian worship.
And there highlighted in green is one of your appeals to a common argument that is not based upon plain interpretation of scripture but the pagan culture of the time. We know from Paul citing Genesis in 1 Timothy, that pagan culture was not his reasoning behind excluding women from leadership.
And the biggie: Genesis 2:4-3:24 The main thing I have to say about this one is that the woman's desire for her husband and his rule over her is a result of the fall, not a condition before it. We do not try to emulate other post-fall conditions in Christianity, why seek to maintain this one?
That's a good observation that Adam and Eve probably had greater equality before the fall, but Paul does not appeal to this curse but to the simple fact that Eve was not created as Adam's ruler or Lord but as his companion and that being created second to him. That's the original order of creation. Adam held authority over Eve as his husband from the very first moment she was created. The curse that the husband shall "rule over her" meant in a more strict way, which would be less pleasant.
Paul and other biblical writers had one overarching purpose: to spread the good news of Jesus Christ and to make disciples of all converts. Inevitably, this goal came up against many obstacles, whether lack of faith, liguistic or cultural obstacles, or others. In the case of men and women, the prevailing cultural norms could have been a major obstacle to the spread of the gospel. You see, at the foot of the cross all are the same before God- hopeless, lost, enmity-bearing people whom God dearly loves and wants to reconcile to Himself. Before God we are all equal. Paul states this in Galatians 3:28. Within the prevailing culture(s) of the first century Roman empire, however, such equality would have been a stumbling block to many converts. Especially Jews (Gentiles our equals!? Meh!) and slaveholders (my slave is my equal!? MEH!). This also included women and wives. Well, these kinds of equality came about as a result of the spread of the gospel, but they were also hard for many to accept. Many, doubtless, could not accept these truths and thus could not accept the Lordship of Christ. So what did Paul and others do? They told slaves to continue to be good workers, told Gentiles to hold Jews in high regard, and told wives to continue to submit to their husbands. This was not to be the permanent solution, only a concession to the cultural norms of the day SO THAT THE GOSPEL COULD INCREASE AMONG THE PEOPLE. After the gospel comes in, it is time for people to change in light of the work that Christ has done. Sometimes this came more slowly than others. Nevertheless, it is better for slaves to work, Gentiles to respect, and wives to submit (and meat eaters to abstain) on behalf of the weaker brother so that the gospel would prevail. It was a service from those who society viewd as weaker to those whom God knew were weaker.
No where in your post did you specifically mention the fact that Paul cites Genesis and the original creation order for his teachings of why women could or could not do certain things. Obviously this was the main reason throughout old and new testaments for why women could or could not do certain things. That is a very important thing you failed to mention if you want to get your doctrine from "bible alone". Instead you seem to appeal to modern day scholars and their views on the culture and society at the times.
It is good to look at the cultural issues but we have to also realise that
none of these issues were as important as you make them out to be. Cultural reasons can make the gospel harder to receive in very isolated and tribal societies, but the fact that where Paul lived and much of the Roman empire was
multi-cultural, shows that this was
unlikely to be an issue for the new testament church. The only time I recall when Paul even talks about culture, is when he defends his rights as an apostle by boasting about his Jewish ancestry.
Paul nowhere cites cultural reasons or anything else like this as a reason for the gospel to be prevented or allowed. I would go so far as to suggest that the very reason why the apostles and early church came against persecution and violence was because they went
against cultural and societal norms.
For something which you said was not to be a permanent solution but a concession to cultural norms, you can no where provide a)
an actual bible verse showing this clearly, or b) where Paul said it - but
we only find an appeal to the creation account of Genesis by Paul.
As for the "curses" that you see, I see in Genesis that God pointedly CURSED the serpent and CURSED the ground, but God did NOT curse the man or the woman. Read it again carefully. God announced or explained the consequences of their separation from Him, but never, NEVER cursed them.
I think you're being a bit picky over word useage. Perhaps punishment is a better word, consequence? In any case, I don't think anyone would argue that these consequences were a blessing. Therefore I think the word curse is entirely appropriate.
By the way, your appeal to history is an argument that does not come from scripture. Perhaps you could try to erase that.
if you appeal to scripture you ARE appealing to history since scripture is a historical record lol. My point was for someone who is claiming to get their doctrine from the bible alone you missed a very important piece of evidence which was Paul's appeal to the creation account of genesis , preferring instead to appeal to cultural reasonings and how that might have prevented or allowed the gospel to be preached.
