PDA

View Full Version : Does 1 Timothy 2:11-14 justify the sceptic?



Sonnet
March 21st, 2016, 07:28 AM
1 Timothy 2:11-14
A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

Paul's reasoning - that Eve was deceived rather than Adam - is baffling to me and, it would seem, rather embarrassing for (*some) Christ followers.

If these scriptures were the first an unbeliever were to read then, surely, they wouldn't engender or encourage faith would they?

* added Tuesday 22nd March.

Sonnet
March 21st, 2016, 08:12 AM
Adam wasn't deceived?

Sonnet
March 21st, 2016, 08:23 AM
If Adam wasn't deceived then what word adequately describes what occurred?

Romans 5:15
But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!

Sonnet
March 21st, 2016, 08:36 AM
Anyway - these scriptures do not facilitate faith in scripture for me - at least.

Sonnet
March 21st, 2016, 09:19 AM
Nobody want to disabuse me of my possible misunderstanding of Paul's views on women?

genuineoriginal
March 21st, 2016, 11:24 AM
Nobody want to disabuse me of my possible misunderstanding of Paul's views on women?
You should give 24 hours before complaining that there are no responses to your new thread.

genuineoriginal
March 21st, 2016, 11:46 AM
1 Timothy 2:11-14
A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

Paul's reasoning - that Eve was deceived rather than Adam - is baffling to me and, it would seem, rather embarrassing for Christ followers.

If these scriptures were the first an unbeliever were to read then, surely, they wouldn't engender or encourage faith would they?
There seems to be two things you are asking about, one is the authority of men over women in the Bible, the other is Paul's statements about what happened in the Garden of Eden.

Paul mentioned a hierarchy that he believed was established by God.

1 Corinthians 11:3
3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
If a woman was put in authority over a man, then it would violate that hierarchy.
It is not embarrassing to believe in the hierarchy established God, since the hierarchy is reinforced by many verses in the Bible (see Numbers 30).


Adam wasn't deceived?
Eve was deceived, but Adam was not.

Adam heard the commandment directly from God.

Genesis 2:17
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Eve heard the commandment from Adam, but what Adam said contained an extra clause that God had not stated.

Genesis 3:3
3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

The serpent took advantage of this addition to the commandment, and deceived Eve, presumably by showing her that the fruit could be touched without dying.
So, Eve, being deceived, ate of the fruit first, then gave it to Adam and he ate as well.

Genesis 3:6
6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

From what Paul said, we can assume the following:
When Eve ate, she did it thinking that what she had been told about dying after eating it was mistaken, since she touched it and did not die.
When Adam ate, he did it knowing full well what God had told to him, and ate it thinking both he and Eve would die.

patrick jane
March 21st, 2016, 12:04 PM
1 Timothy 2:11-14
A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

Paul's reasoning - that Eve was deceived rather than Adam - is baffling to me and, it would seem, rather embarrassing for Christ followers.

If these scriptures were the first an unbeliever were to read then, surely, they wouldn't engender or encourage faith would they?

It's ridiculous to think that those would be the first scriptures heard or read by a new believer.

patrick jane
March 21st, 2016, 12:35 PM
It's spelled skeptic, with a k

patrick jane
March 21st, 2016, 12:37 PM
Nobody want to disabuse me of my possible misunderstanding of Paul's views on women?
That was the early formation of Christianity, times and customs were much different back then. They had no Susan B Anthony

Sonnet
March 21st, 2016, 02:35 PM
You should give 24 hours before complaining that there are no responses to your new thread.

Wasn't actually complaining.

Sonnet
March 21st, 2016, 02:40 PM
It's spelled skeptic, with a k

In the UK it's with a 'c'.

Sonnet
March 21st, 2016, 02:41 PM
It's ridiculous to think that those would be the first scriptures heard or read by a new believer.

But nonetheless possible.

Sonnet
March 21st, 2016, 02:43 PM
That was the early formation of Christianity, times and customs were much different back then. They had no Susan B Anthony

Paul does not make it a custom - and explicitly says it was because she was deceived whilst Adam wasn't.

Sonnet
March 21st, 2016, 03:04 PM
There seems to be two things you are asking about, one is the authority of men over women in the Bible, the other is Paul's statements about what happened in the Garden of Eden.

Paul mentioned a hierarchy that he believed was established by God.

1 Corinthians 11:3
3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.


If a woman was put in authority over a man, then it would violate that hierarchy.
It is not embarrassing to believe in the hierarchy established God, since the hierarchy is reinforced by many verses in the Bible (see Numbers 30).

Okay - but does teaching constitute having authority over someone? Paul goes further and states that women should be quiet.

1 Cor. 14:34-35
Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

This silence because of the fact that Eve was deceived and came after man?

exminister
March 21st, 2016, 03:08 PM
1 Timothy 2:11-14
A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

Paul's reasoning - that Eve was deceived rather than Adam - is baffling to me and, it would seem, rather embarrassing for Christ followers.

If these scriptures were the first an unbeliever were to read then, surely, they wouldn't engender or encourage faith would they?

It's not a main theme in the Bible.

There were 7 women prophets who would have reason to be less submissive. One was a judge of Israel itself.

http://stronginfaith.org/article.php?page=90

Sonnet
March 21st, 2016, 03:09 PM
Eve was deceived, but Adam was not.

Adam heard the commandment directly from God.

Genesis 2:17
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Eve heard the commandment from Adam, but what Adam said contained an extra clause that God had not stated.

Genesis 3:3
3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

The serpent took advantage of this addition to the commandment, and deceived Eve, presumably by showing her that the fruit could be touched without dying.
So, Eve, being deceived, ate of the fruit first, then gave it to Adam and he ate as well.

Genesis 3:6
6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

From what Paul said, we can assume the following:
When Eve ate, she did it thinking that what she had been told about dying after eating it was mistaken, since she touched it and did not die.
When Adam ate, he did it knowing full well what God had told to him, and ate it thinking both he and Eve would die.

It does not say that Adam told Eve.
There isn't a suggestion that the snake used the addition to deceive her. The snake just tells her that she will not die if she eats it.
Whether Adam was deceived or not, he went against God just as Eve did. And, apparently, the sanction only falls upon her sex.

Nick M
March 21st, 2016, 03:10 PM
Paul's reasoning - that Eve was deceived rather than Adam - is baffling to me and

Maybe you have an aptitude problem.


it would seem, rather embarrassing for Christ followers.

Nothing in the Bible is embarrassing to those in Christ.


If these scriptures were the first an unbeliever were to read then, surely, they wouldn't engender or encourage faith would they?

And how would they open to some random page and hit that one? The person preaching the good news teaches that all are condemned because of Adam, but life is offered to all because the Lord Jesus Christ satisfied the punishment for sin.

Sonnet
March 21st, 2016, 03:14 PM
It's not a main theme in the Bible.

There were 7 women prophets who would have reason to be less submissive. One was a judge of Israel itself.

http://stronginfaith.org/article.php?page=90

Good point. So, despite this fact, you have no qualms about Paul?

Sonnet
March 21st, 2016, 03:15 PM
Maybe you have an aptitude problem.



Nothing in the Bible is embarrassing to those in Christ.



And how would they open to some random page and hit that one? The person preaching the good news teaches that all are condemned because of Adam, but life is offered to all because the Lord Jesus Christ satisfied the punishment for sin.

If you go to church - do the women keep silent? If not then you wouldn't, I presume, be embarrassed to cite this scripture to them?

Sonnet
March 21st, 2016, 03:18 PM
And how would they open to some random page and hit that one? The person preaching the good news teaches that all are condemned because of Adam, but life is offered to all because the Lord Jesus Christ satisfied the punishment for sin.

An atheist might cite this to a mate as a reason to not take scripture seriously.

Nick M
March 21st, 2016, 03:22 PM
An atheist might cite this to a mate as a reason to not take scripture seriously.

The Bible says otherwise. The Lord Jesus Christ said otherwise. He said if he was lifted up (crucified) he would draw all people to him. That includes "atheists".

Sonnet
March 21st, 2016, 03:25 PM
The Bible says otherwise. The Lord Jesus Christ said otherwise. He said if he was lifted up (crucified) he would draw all people to him. That includes "atheists".

But my statement does not deny that.

Nick M
March 21st, 2016, 03:30 PM
If you go to church - do the women keep silent? If not then you wouldn't, I presume, be embarrassed to cite this scripture to them?

I understand if you don't know me very well.


The only one that is to remain silent is you. Obey Paul you heathen.

Sonnet
March 21st, 2016, 03:33 PM
The only one that is to remain silent is you. Obey Paul you heathen.

Your post is reportable, I'd say.


If you go to church - do the women keep silent? If not then you wouldn't, I presume, be embarrassed to cite 1 Tim 2:11-14 and 1 Cor.14 34-35 to them?

Do you? Will you?

Sonnet
March 21st, 2016, 03:38 PM
Quote Originally Posted by Sonnet View Post
If you go to church - do the women keep silent? If not then you wouldn't, I presume, be embarrassed to cite this scripture to them?
I understand if you don't know me very well.

Quote Originally Posted by Nick M View Post
The only one that is to remain silent is you. Obey Paul you heathen.

1 Peter 3:15
But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,

I'm not sure 'obey Paul you heathen' does that.

Nick M
March 21st, 2016, 04:28 PM
Your post is reportable, I'd say.




That woman needs to listen to Paul and the Holy Bible. If that is an infraction here, then so be it.

Sonnet
March 21st, 2016, 04:37 PM
That woman needs to listen to Paul and the Holy Bible. If that is an infraction here, then so be it.

'That woman'? No - you directed your statement to me.

I note that you have not answered my post.

Sonnet
March 21st, 2016, 04:41 PM
I may be wrong, but I'd say most Christians and most Churches ignore this sanction against women. Why? After all, Paul explicitly gives his reasoning for the sanction - Eve was deceived and Adam wasn't. It seems pretty important to Paul.

exminister
March 21st, 2016, 06:10 PM
It's not a main theme in the Bible.

There were 7 women prophets who would have reason to be less submissive. One was a judge of Israel itself.

http://stronginfaith.org/article.php?page=90


Good point. So, despite this fact, you have no qualms about Paul?

Paul in Corinthians says it's shameful for men to have long hair.
The Biblical world view on women and slavery are not like today. So I understand it in that context.

Is there anything in the Bible you like particularly its' major themes?

Nick M
March 21st, 2016, 07:49 PM
'That woman'? No - you directed your statement to me.



In post quotes? You do have an aptitude problem.

genuineoriginal
March 21st, 2016, 11:18 PM
It does not say that Adam told Eve.
There isn't a suggestion that the snake used the addition to deceive her. The snake just tells her that she will not die if she eats it.
Both ideas were extrapolated from the verses in question as the most logical way for the change in the commandment to happen and the serpent's deceit to happen.

Whether Adam was deceived or not, he went against God just as Eve did.
Adam went against God, even though he was not deceived.

And, apparently, the sanction only falls upon her sex.
Yes, so the only real question is why you are so upset that you chose to troll a Christian forum.

Sonnet
March 21st, 2016, 11:31 PM
Both ideas were extrapolated from the verses in question as the most logical way for the change in the commandment to happen and the serpent's deceit to happen.

We may debate about how, but we agree Eve was deceived.


Adam went against God, even though he was not deceived.

Nevertheless, Adam must have decided that whatever God had said regarding the fruit, the consequences were bearable.


Yes, so the only real question is why you are so upset that you chose to troll a Christian forum.

Troll? No, I am in earnest. Why are people taking such offence?

Assuming you go to Church, do the women follow Paul's sanctions? If not, do you cite him?

Sonnet
March 21st, 2016, 11:33 PM
In post quotes? You do have an aptitude problem.

If I have then you haven't demonstrated it. Would appreciate you answering my posts please.

Sonnet
March 21st, 2016, 11:38 PM
Paul in Corinthians says it's shameful for men to have long hair.
The Biblical world view on women and slavery are not like today. So I understand it in that context.


Are you saying Paul erred regarding his reasoning? Are you saying that it was wrong of him to point the finger at Eve and not Adam?


Is there anything in the Bible you like particularly its' major themes?

I would say that the passion of Christ is very interesting, but I don't want to derail the thread.

genuineoriginal
March 21st, 2016, 11:51 PM
Troll? No, I am in earnest. Why are people taking such offence?
There have been a number of non-Christian trolls that have popped up on this site that acted just like you have done on this thread.
Are you getting your material from those anti-Christian websites?


Assuming you go to Church, do the women follow Paul's sanctions? If not, do you cite him?
I do not go to any church that builds a large doctrine on a single verse in scripture that appears to be encouraging people to follow the customs of the society of their day.


1 Corinthians 11:14
14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
Yes, there are men with long hair, short hair, and even bald men in church.

Why?

Because when Paul wrote this, he lived in a culture dominated by the Romans, and the Romans had men cut their hair short and shave off their beards.

During the time of Moses, the men had longer hair and full beards.

In the 1960's the people with long hair and beards were in rebellion against society and religion.
Nowadays, homosexual men are more likely to be clean shaven with short hair and conservatives run around with long hair and beards.

Different times, different customs.

Just don't make it a dogma that takes you away from the truth.

Sonnet
March 22nd, 2016, 12:06 AM
There have been a number of non-Christian trolls that have popped up on this site that acted just like you have done on this thread.
Are you getting your material from those anti-Christian websites?

I wasn't aware of such trolling. No, the post is without reference to any website.


I do not go to any church that builds a large doctrine on a single verse in scripture that appears to be encouraging people to follow the customs of the society of their day.

However, Paul is not drawing from custom - he cites scriptural reason for his sanction. Paul also says that "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness"



1 Corinthians 11:14
14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
Yes, there are men with long hair, short hair, and even bald men in church.

Why?

Because when Paul wrote this, he lived in a culture dominated by the Romans, and the Romans had men cut their hair short and shave off their beards.

During the time of Moses, the men had longer hair and full beards.

In the 1960's the people with long hair and beards were in rebellion against society and religion.
Nowadays, homosexual men are more likely to be clean shaven with short hair and conservatives run around with long hair and beards.

Different times, different customs.

Just don't make it a dogma that takes you away from the truth.

I see your point here, but my previous statement still holds does it not?

Sonnet
March 22nd, 2016, 12:14 AM
There have been a number of non-Christian trolls that have popped up on this site that acted just like you have done on this thread.
Are you getting your material from those anti-Christian websites?


I do not go to any church that builds a large doctrine on a single verse in scripture that appears to be encouraging people to follow the customs of the society of their day.


1 Corinthians 11:14
14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
Yes, there are men with long hair, short hair, and even bald men in church.

Why?

Because when Paul wrote this, he lived in a culture dominated by the Romans, and the Romans had men cut their hair short and shave off their beards.

During the time of Moses, the men had longer hair and full beards.

In the 1960's the people with long hair and beards were in rebellion against society and religion.
Nowadays, homosexual men are more likely to be clean shaven with short hair and conservatives run around with long hair and beards.

Different times, different customs.

Just don't make it a dogma that takes you away from the truth.

The Catholic Church does not appear to agree with you since they do not ordinate women.

Sonnet
March 22nd, 2016, 12:43 AM
Nor Southern Baptists and some evangelical Protestants.

Sonnet
March 22nd, 2016, 12:59 AM
The context regarding Paul's sanction is clear from the first chapter of his letter:

1 Timothy 1:3-7
As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain people not to teach false doctrines any longer or to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. Such things promote controversial speculations rather than advancing God’s work—which is by faith. The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. Some have departed from these and have turned to meaningless talk. They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm.

As this thread identifies, Paul numbers women among those whom he tells Timothy to 'command...not to teach' - because women, he thinks, are not to be trusted because they are prone to deception....that they would teach such false doctrines.

Is Paul correct in his assertion?

Sonnet
March 22nd, 2016, 01:24 AM
Acts 17:11
Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

Sonnet
March 22nd, 2016, 01:45 AM
Added the word 'some' to the OP:

Paul's reasoning - that Eve was deceived rather than Adam - is baffling to me and, it would seem, rather embarrassing for (some) Christ followers.

God's Truth
March 22nd, 2016, 02:36 AM
Added the word 'some' to the OP:

Paul's reasoning - that Eve was deceived rather than Adam - is baffling to me and, it would seem, rather embarrassing for (some) Christ followers.

I understand what you are saying. You have been verbally abused here for asking a sincere question.

exminister
March 22nd, 2016, 04:47 AM
Are you saying Paul erred regarding his reasoning? Are you saying that it was wrong of him to point the finger at Eve and not Adam?



I would say that the passion of Christ is very interesting, but I don't want to derail the thread.

Paul was a very bright guy and his reasoning was very persuasive. He reasoning with Greek who sought wisdom.

In this matter he didn't err. For the time it was right. In fact in strong Islamic countries it still is good advice.

Note that Paul used nature as proof men having long hair was wrong. GO expanded that thoroughly.

Have you heard of the Old and New covenant? God himself established the Old covenant but that went away when Christ was crucified.

In Timothy it says you need to rightly divide Scripture. Quote mining without considering the context of the entire book and times isn't rightly dividing.

If you just want to stay on this point then fine but I think GO and I have responded fully. From this point it will just get repetitive.

exminister
March 22nd, 2016, 05:12 AM
I understand what you are saying. You have been verbally abused here for asking a sincere question.

Abuse is some people's MO on TOL. Sonnet, if you stay you will learn who to ignore.

I think GO and I have attempted to answer Sonnet's question sincerely.

GT,
Light a candle.
How do you answer Sonnet's inquiry?

Jamie Gigliotti
March 22nd, 2016, 06:12 AM
Eve was deceived and ironically Adam did not follow God and lead Eve, He followed Eve instead of God. Two different sins. Genesis 3:6

exminister
March 22nd, 2016, 07:27 AM
Eve was deceived and ironically Adam did not follow God and lead Eve, He followed Eve instead of God. Two different sins. Genesis 3:6

Not sure how that is ironic, but is either sin greater? Knowingly doing something is wrong is worse than being tricked into it. Adam did worse in my book.

Jamie Gigliotti
March 22nd, 2016, 08:08 AM
Not sure how that is ironic, but is either sin greater? Knowingly doing something is wrong is worse than being tricked into it. Adam did worse in my book.

The irony is in the cultural opposistion to men leading.

Both are bad. I try not to get into the sin gradient game. One just preceded the other.

genuineoriginal
March 22nd, 2016, 10:51 AM
However, Paul is not drawing from custom
Sure he is.
Paul is drawing from the customs of the Jews.
The Jews did not permit any woman to teach or even speak in the synagogues, a practice you can still find today in Hasidic communities.


- he cites scriptural reason for his sanction. Paul also says that "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness"
Yes, I believe I addressed this by pointing out that there are other scriptures that support the hierarchy that has man as the head of the woman.


I see your point here, but my previous statement still holds does it not?
There are many churches that hold to the hierarchy of man as the head of the woman, and there are other churches that have tossed that hierarchy out the window.
The churches that allow women to be pastors have also allowed openly practicing homosexuals to be pastors.

The Catholic Church does not appear to agree with you since they do not ordinate women.
The Catholic Church only ordains celibate men, and any of them that are not celibate are in violation of their office.

Nor Southern Baptists and some evangelical Protestants.
The churches that hold to the hierarchy of man as head over woman have managed to avoid some of the problems seen in the churches that don't.

God's Truth
March 22nd, 2016, 11:51 AM
Not sure how that is ironic, but is either sin greater? Knowingly doing something is wrong is worse than being tricked into it. Adam did worse in my book.

I believe the Bible tells us about the greater sin because breaking a command from God is worse than not hearing a command and sinning. However, both Adam and Eve knew not to eat of the tree, as commanded by God.

Romans 5:14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.


Even though Eve sinned first by eating of the fruit, sin still entered the world through Adam, the man.


Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned--


I believe these scriptures show that Adam's sin was greater; and that man is over the woman.

Tambora
March 22nd, 2016, 01:10 PM
1 Corinthians 14 KJV

(34) Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law

You could start by showing what the law says about it..

exminister
March 22nd, 2016, 01:15 PM
1 Corinthians 14 KJV

(34) Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law

You could start by showing what the law says about it..

Please expand on this...

Tambora
March 22nd, 2016, 01:34 PM
1 Corinthians 14 KJV

(34) Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law

You could start by showing what the law says about it..

Please expand on this...It means that since Paul says it is according to what the law says, one should find what the law says about it.

We know that Paul cannot be talking about women not uttering words, for he states earlier to the Corinthians that women are to prayeth and prophesieth with their heads covered:

1 Corinthians 11 KJV
(5) But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.




So whatever silence and obedience Paul is speaking of, is not about women not making an utterance.

Sonnet
March 23rd, 2016, 03:11 AM
Paul was a very bright guy and his reasoning was very persuasive. He reasoning with Greek who sought wisdom.

In this matter he didn't err. For the time it was right. In fact in strong Islamic countries it still is good advice.

Note that Paul used nature as proof men having long hair was wrong. GO expanded that thoroughly.

Have you heard of the Old and New covenant? God himself established the Old covenant but that went away when Christ was crucified.

In Timothy it says you need to rightly divide Scripture. Quote mining without considering the context of the entire book and times isn't rightly dividing.

If you just want to stay on this point then fine but I think GO and I have responded fully. From this point it will just get repetitive.

If Paul only meant the sanction against women (regarding teaching and having authority over men) to be for the time/culture then he would not have made reference to the Fall and differentiated between the sexes.

Sure, by your reasoning we might legitimately reverse Paul's differentiation...claiming it was just for the time/culture?

Sonnet
March 23rd, 2016, 03:43 AM
Not sure how that is ironic, but is either sin greater? Knowingly doing something is wrong is worse than being tricked into it. Adam did worse in my book.

If Adam did worse then Paul's sanction against women would seem inappropriate wouldn't it?

Sonnet
March 23rd, 2016, 03:47 AM
Sure he is.
Paul is drawing from the customs of the Jews.
The Jews did not permit any woman to teach or even speak in the synagogues, a practice you can still find today in Hasidic communities.


Yes, I believe I addressed this by pointing out that there are other scriptures that support the hierarchy that has man as the head of the woman.


There are many churches that hold to the hierarchy of man as the head of the woman, and there are other churches that have tossed that hierarchy out the window.
The churches that allow women to be pastors have also allowed openly practicing homosexuals to be pastors.

The Catholic Church only ordains celibate men, and any of them that are not celibate are in violation of their office.

The churches that hold to the hierarchy of man as head over woman have managed to avoid some of the problems seen in the churches that don't.

Okay - so you are agreeing with Paul that woman are more prone to deception? I'm not saying you are wrong - or right. Just clarifying.

exminister
March 23rd, 2016, 04:08 AM
If Adam did worse then Paul's sanction against women would seem inappropriate wouldn't it?

I was talking about Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve :liberals:

Whoops I meant not talking about Adam and Paul. :)

Have you considered Tambora's post and my mention of 7 women prophetesses specially mentioned in the Bible. There were others but not specially called out. How does that square with your point? Is it possible you are viewing it with modern eyes?

genuineoriginal
March 23rd, 2016, 05:45 AM
Okay - so you are agreeing with Paul that woman are more prone to deception? I'm not saying you are wrong - or right. Just clarifying.
No, it is not that women are more prone to deception than men, there is something else involved: the hierarchy.


1 Corinthians 11:3
3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

Why is the hierarchy important in the discussion of the woman being deceived?
It has to do with who speaks to who.

God speaks to Christ, who relays what God said to man, who relays what God said to woman.

Adam's addition to the commandment of God, "neither shall ye touch it," made it easier for the woman to be deceived, which is why God later gave the commandment:

Deuteronomy 4:2
2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

But that does not change the fact that both God and Christ communicate through the hierarchy established, a "chain of command", and do not jump over that hierarchy without good reason, such as no man being over the woman (husband or father).

Sonnet
March 23rd, 2016, 01:46 PM
No, it is not that women are more prone to deception than men, there is something else involved: the hierarchy.


1 Corinthians 11:3
3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

Why is the hierarchy important in the discussion of the woman being deceived?
It has to do with who speaks to who.

God speaks to Christ, who relays what God said to man, who relays what God said to woman.

Adam's addition to the commandment of God, "neither shall ye touch it," made it easier for the woman to be deceived, which is why God later gave the commandment:

Deuteronomy 4:2
2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

But that does not change the fact that both God and Christ communicate through the hierarchy established, a "chain of command", and do not jump over that hierarchy without good reason, such as no man being over the woman (husband or father).

Okay - this is very interesting. I can see your point a little clearer now. In the last clause, did you mean "such as no woman being over the man..."?

You think there are repercussions if the hierarchy is not observed - would you expound on that please? Any examples? The Anglican Church? Marriage? Marriages where the husband no longer believes in Christ?

Sonnet
March 23rd, 2016, 02:59 PM
Paul in Corinthians says it's shameful for men to have long hair.
The Biblical world view on women and slavery are not like today. So I understand it in that context.

Is there anything in the Bible you like particularly its' major themes?

You refer to genuineoriginal - but I wonder if you agree with him? He said:

"There are many churches that hold to the hierarchy of man as the head of the woman, and there are other churches that have tossed that hierarchy out the window.
The churches that allow women to be pastors have also allowed openly practising homosexuals to be pastors."

and

"The churches that hold to the hierarchy of man as head over woman have managed to avoid some of the problems seen in the churches that don't."

Your view:

"The Biblical world view on women and slavery are not like today."

By the way, I'm not trying to catch anyone out - I am genuinely interested in peoples thoughts.

Sonnet
March 23rd, 2016, 03:02 PM
I was talking about Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve :liberals:

Whoops I meant not talking about Adam and Paul. :)

Have you considered Tambora's post and my mention of 7 women prophetesses specially mentioned in the Bible. There were others but not specially called out. How does that square with your point? Is it possible you are viewing it with modern eyes?

Yes - Tambora makes an interesting point.

Sonnet
March 23rd, 2016, 03:57 PM
I believe the Bible tells us about the greater sin because breaking a command from God is worse than not hearing a command and sinning. However, both Adam and Eve knew not to eat of the tree, as commanded by God.

Romans 5:14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.


Even though Eve sinned first by eating of the fruit, sin still entered the world through Adam, the man.


Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned--


I believe these scriptures show that Adam's sin was greater; and that man is over the woman.

Ok - so why would Paul single out Eve's vulnerability to deception (and thus women in general) and relate it to why they should not teach etc if Adam's sin was, in your view, greater?

The hierarchical order (mentioned in 1 Cor 11:3) would seem to be sufficient to explain why women shouldn't teach and have authority.

Just trying to get to the bottom of thus.

Sonnet
March 23rd, 2016, 04:00 PM
The lack of hierarchical order in, for example, the Anglican communion would seem to be at complete odds with the hierarchical order mentioned in scripture.

Anyone here like to defend that (the Anglican's) position?

Sonnet
March 23rd, 2016, 04:12 PM
I do not go to any church that builds a large doctrine on a single verse in scripture that appears to be encouraging people to follow the customs of the society of their day.


This was your response to my:

"Assuming you go to Church, do the women follow Paul's sanctions? If not, do you cite him?"

But you say:
"Yes, I believe I addressed this by pointing out that there are other scriptures that support the hierarchy that has man as the head of the woman."

You subscribe to the hierarchical order (citing 1 Cor 11:3 but appear to diminish 1 Tim 2:11-14.

exminister
March 23rd, 2016, 06:12 PM
If Adam did worse then Paul's sanction against women would seem inappropriate wouldn't it?


I was talking about Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve :liberals:

Whoops I meant not talking about Adam and Paul. :)

Have you considered Tambora's post and my mention of 7 women prophetesses specially mentioned in the Bible. There were others but not specially called out. How does that square with your point? Is it possible you are viewing it with modern eyes?

Sonnet,
Did you see the above?

I referenced GO expansion of the cultural thing and noted you have two people answering you. Are you trying to stir the pot and not looking for an answer?
If so I say Good Day, Sir.

exminister
March 23rd, 2016, 06:17 PM
If Paul only meant the sanction against women (regarding teaching and having authority over men) to be for the time/culture then he would not have made reference to the Fall and differentiated between the sexes.

Sure, by your reasoning we might legitimately reverse Paul's differentiation...claiming it was just for the time/culture?

I am fine with that as I have stated in multiple posts.

God's Truth
March 23rd, 2016, 08:59 PM
Ok - so why would Paul single out Eve's vulnerability to deception (and thus women in general) and relate it to why they should not teach etc if Adam's sin was, in your view, greater?

The hierarchical order (mentioned in 1 Cor 11:3) would seem to be sufficient to explain why women shouldn't teach and have authority.

Just trying to get to the bottom of thus.

Paul speaks about women in general.

Sonnet
March 23rd, 2016, 10:21 PM
Sonnet,
Did you see the above?

I did...


Quote Originally Posted by exminister View Post
I was talking about Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve

Whoops I meant not talking about Adam and Paul.

Not quite following you.


Have you considered Tambora's post and my mention of 7 women prophetesses specially mentioned in the Bible. There were others but not specially called out. How does that square with your point? Is it possible you are viewing it with modern eyes?

I did see this, yes.


I referenced GO expansion of the cultural thing and noted you have two people answering you. Are you trying to stir the pot and not looking for an answer?
If so I say Good Day, Sir.

I am not trying to stir things, no. Why do you ask? The split in the Church over this issue would suggest that a definitive answer is going to be difficult.

Scriptures such as those referenced on this thread remain a stumbling block for atheists, agnostics and myself, especially in the modern age of equality.

Sonnet
March 23rd, 2016, 10:46 PM
A friend of mine is a follower of Christ but he does not consider the bible authoritative. He has singled out this thread's OP scripture as particularly worthy of condemnation.

Sonnet
March 23rd, 2016, 10:53 PM
I repeat:

"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have."

1 Peter 3:15

"Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true."

Acts 17:11

God's Truth
March 24th, 2016, 04:32 AM
1 Timothy 2:11-14
A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

Paul's reasoning - that Eve was deceived rather than Adam - is baffling to me and, it would seem, rather embarrassing for (*some) Christ followers.

If these scriptures were the first an unbeliever were to read then, surely, they wouldn't engender or encourage faith would they?

* added Tuesday 22nd March.

Paul is speaking about the nature of women in general.

It is good information on the nature of women.

As for being quiet while learning that is about order in a public setting when a woman doesn't understand something being discussed and wants to learn.

There must be order. Women and men must be able to humble themselves, for no one can even enter the kingdom without being able to humble one's self.

Is it a lack of humbleness that is causing you so much trouble with this scripture?

God's Truth
March 24th, 2016, 04:36 AM
A friend of mine is a follower of Christ but he does not consider the bible authoritative. He has singled out this thread's OP scripture as particularly worthy of condemnation.

The Bible must be authoritative, if it is not, then the words of any person can substitute the words of God.

We must obey God not men.

Sonnet
March 24th, 2016, 04:46 AM
Paul is speaking about the nature of women in general.

It is good information on the nature of women.

As for being quiet while learning that is about order in a public setting when a woman doesn't understand something being discussed and wants to learn.

There must be order. Women and men must be able to humble themselves, for no one can even enter the kingdom without being able to humble one's self.

Is it a lack of humbleness that is causing you so much trouble with this scripture?

No - not humbleness in this context - I'm male - it's more about trying to understand Paul's reasoning (which has been explained by folk here) and why the Church is not in agreement (eg. the Anglican Church). Paul appears to establish an hierarchical order in a number of scriptures...and does so explicitly.

It is a stumbling block for me personally - and not only this but other scriptures too.

Sonnet
March 24th, 2016, 04:48 AM
The Bible must be authoritative, if it is not, then the words of any person can substitute the words of God.

We must obey God not men.

But it is not so easy to establish the Bible as authoritative. One could legitimately do as my friend has done.

God's Truth
March 24th, 2016, 05:16 AM
No - not humbleness in this context - I'm male - it's more about trying to understand Paul's reasoning (which has been explained by folk here) and why the Church is not in agreement (eg. the Anglican Church).

All denominations teach some falseness. You have to look to the written Word of God.

As for being male, you still have to humble yourself to God's words.

It is good that you care about women being unfairly judged. Can you not find reasoning in what Paul says without disregarding it all together?





Paul appears to establish an hierarchical order in a number of scriptures...and does so explicitly.

It is a stumbling block for me personally - and not only this but other scriptures too.

Are you having trouble with what Paul says because you go to a church where women lead?

I want to discuss those other scriptures with you.

Remember, Paul was speaking about the nature of women in general.

God's Truth
March 24th, 2016, 05:19 AM
But it is not so easy to establish the Bible as authoritative. One could legitimately do as my friend has done.

You are right, one can easily write off some things that Paul says. Some would like to dismiss everything Paul says.

Before you write off Paul, or anything that he says, get to a more humble place, and maybe the truth will become clearer to you.

God's Truth
March 24th, 2016, 05:23 AM
Making oneself more humble is a risky thing, in some people's minds. However, look at what you are being humble to. Don't be humble to what any man or women says; be humble to the written Word.

If you do not think that the Almighty God can preserve His Word exactly as it is preserved, then how mighty is God to you?

Sonnet
March 24th, 2016, 05:36 AM
All denominations teach some falseness. You have to look to the written Word of God.

As for being male, you still have to humble yourself to God's words.

Indeed. I was only referring to the context of this thread.


It is good that you care about women being unfairly judged. Can you not find reasoning in what Paul says without disregarding it all together?

Yes - though it is difficult in the current egalitarian milieu and church split.



Are you having trouble with what Paul says because you go to a church where women lead?

I don't go to church and I am not a believer.


I want to discuss those other scriptures with you.

Remember, Paul was speaking about the nature of women in general.

Okay.

Sonnet
March 24th, 2016, 05:42 AM
You are right, one can easily write off some things that Paul says. Some would like to dismiss everything Paul says.

Before you write off Paul, or anything that he says, get to a more humble place, and maybe the truth will become clearer to you.

I'm not dissing Paul, yet.

Sonnet
March 24th, 2016, 05:46 AM
Making oneself more humble is a risky thing, in some people's minds. However, look at what you are being humble to. Don't be humble to what any man or women says; be humble to the written Word.

If you do not think that the Almighty God can preserve His Word exactly as it is preserved, then how mighty is God to you?

And yet is it necessary for a book - the bible - to be 100% accurate? One would think that one could be a believer without scripture as Abraham etc.

Tambora
March 24th, 2016, 09:19 AM
I was talking about Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve :liberals:

Whoops I meant not talking about Adam and Paul. :)

Have you considered Tambora's post and my mention of 7 women prophetesses specially mentioned in the Bible. There were others but not specially called out. How does that square with your point? Is it possible you are viewing it with modern eyes?Not only the prophetesses mentioned, but there was also a time when Israel had a queen (Athaliah) instead of a king (ie. a woman was ruling).

God's Truth
March 24th, 2016, 10:44 AM
Indeed. I was only referring to the context of this thread.

The context of the thread is God's written Word, and no scripture can be put aside.

Why can no scripture be put aside? Because one would be putting the very words of God aside. You cannot do that.


Yes - though it is difficult in the current egalitarian milieu and church split.
All denominations are split. They all teach falseness and go against each other.
God's Truth, however, is in the written Word of God. There is a secret to understanding what that is. The secret is to obey what is written.



I don't go to church and I am not a believer.

Not going to church is good, and not being a believer may cause some problems in understanding the Truth.

God's Truth
March 24th, 2016, 10:48 AM
I'm not dissing Paul, yet.

Okay that is good.

There is a general sense of women that cannot be ignored. Not all women are exactly the same, surely not a women before being saved and a women who has been given understanding from the Holy Spirit; however, there still is a general truth about women, and it must be considered.

It is something all must consider, from doctors to scientists, from athletics to physical differences, to emotions to our chemical makeup.

God's Truth
March 24th, 2016, 10:50 AM
And yet is it necessary for a book - the bible - to be 100% accurate? One would think that one could be a believer without scripture as Abraham etc.

Abraham had God speaking to him directly.

We have the written Word of God.

genuineoriginal
March 24th, 2016, 10:50 AM
Okay - this is very interesting. I can see your point a little clearer now. In the last clause, did you mean "such as no woman being over the man..."?
Paul's teaching was that the woman should not be over the man as a teacher or authority when it comes to God's commandments.

I said, " do not jump over that hierarchy without good reason, such as no man being over the woman (husband or father)."
In Leviticus 30, the discussion is about how a father can annul a vow made by a daughter living in his household and a husband can annul a vow made by his wife.

However, there are times when a woman will not have a father or a husband that has the authority to annul her vows.
These are the women I am referring to as having no man over them.


You think there are repercussions if the hierarchy is not observed - would you expound on that please? Any examples? The Anglican Church?
The Episcopalian church (American version of Anglican church) ordained women priests in 1974, and ordained the first openly gay bishop in 2003.
It is my belief that the openly gay man would never have been ordained as a bishop in that church if they had not set the stage for it by ordaining women as priests.

I don't know of any denomination that has ordained openly gay men and women as priests, bishops, and pastors without first ordaining women.


Marriage? Marriages where the husband no longer believes in Christ?
Paul stated that anyone married to a non-believer could divorce them. 1 Corinthians 7:12-16

If the wife believes and the husband does not believe, still the wife is not to assume she has scriptural authority or teaching over her husband or over other men.

genuineoriginal
March 24th, 2016, 10:54 AM
This was your response to my:

"Assuming you go to Church, do the women follow Paul's sanctions? If not, do you cite him?"

But you say:
"Yes, I believe I addressed this by pointing out that there are other scriptures that support the hierarchy that has man as the head of the woman."

You subscribe to the hierarchical order (citing 1 Cor 11:3 but appear to diminish 1 Tim 2:11-14.
I believe 1 Timothy 2:11-14 was said as a practical application of the hierarchical order, not as something separate from it.

genuineoriginal
March 24th, 2016, 10:59 AM
A friend of mine is a follower of Christ but he does not consider the bible authoritative.
Jesus considered the Bible (Old Testament) authoritative, so how can your friend claim to be a follower of Christ if your friend dismisses what Jesus profoundly believed in?

He has singled out this thread's OP scripture as particularly worthy of condemnation.
What other ways is your friend rebelling against God?

God's Truth
March 24th, 2016, 10:59 AM
Not only the prophetesses mentioned, but there was also a time when Israel had a queen (Athaliah) instead of a king (ie. a woman was ruling).

Even though she was a wicked woman.

Sonnet
March 24th, 2016, 03:38 PM
Jesus considered the Bible (Old Testament) authoritative, so how can your friend claim to be a follower of Christ if your friend dismisses what Jesus profoundly believed in?

You are trusting that scripture recorded exactly what occurred. He isn't.


What other ways is your friend rebelling against God?

It is an assumption to say he is rebelling isn't it?
I don't know enough about my friend to comment further.

lifeisgood
March 24th, 2016, 03:42 PM
Even though she was a wicked woman.

Most male kings were wicked.
What's your point.

Sonnet
March 24th, 2016, 03:43 PM
Abraham had God speaking to him directly.

We have the written Word of God.

Exactly - scripture is not the sine qua non of a Godly relationship.

Sonnet
March 24th, 2016, 03:48 PM
If the wife believes and the husband does not believe, still the wife is not to assume she has scriptural authority or teaching over her husband or over other men.

Would you expound on this please?

Sonnet
March 24th, 2016, 03:57 PM
If Paul did not err in his understanding of God's hierarchical order, then the world, especially the western world with it's focus on sexual equality, is in diametric opposition.

Sonnet
March 24th, 2016, 04:08 PM
Paul's teaching was that the woman should not be over the man as a teacher or authority when it comes to God's commandments.

I said, " do not jump over that hierarchy without good reason, such as no man being over the woman (husband or father)."
In Leviticus 30, the discussion is about how a father can annul a vow made by a daughter living in his household and a husband can annul a vow made by his wife.

However, there are times when a woman will not have a father or a husband that has the authority to annul her vows.
These are the women I am referring to as having no man over them.

Interesting. Thanks.



The Episcopalian church (American version of Anglican church) ordained women priests in 1974, and ordained the first openly gay bishop in 2003.
It is my belief that the openly gay man would never have been ordained as a bishop in that church if they had not set the stage for it by ordaining women as priests.

Indeed - Gene Robinson I believe.


I don't know of any denomination that has ordained openly gay men and women as priests, bishops, and pastors without first ordaining women.

Ok.



Paul stated that anyone married to a non-believer could divorce them. 1 Corinthians 7:12-16

Indeed.

genuineoriginal
March 24th, 2016, 05:37 PM
If Paul did not err in his understanding of God's hierarchical order, then the world, especially the western world with it's focus on sexual equality, is in diametric opposition.
Do you think this is the only way the western world is in diametric opposition to the teachings of the Bible?

God's Truth
March 24th, 2016, 07:00 PM
Most male kings were wicked.
What's your point.
My point is she was a wicked woman. What is your point? If you want to teach unbelievers that women are acceptable as leaders, why chose a wicked woman as an example?

God's Truth
March 24th, 2016, 07:06 PM
Exactly - scripture is not the sine qua non of a Godly relationship.

Scripture and the obedience to God is the way to a Godly relationship.

God's Truth
March 24th, 2016, 07:08 PM
If Paul did not err in his understanding of God's hierarchical order, then the world, especially the western world with it's focus on sexual equality, is in diametric opposition.

You do not have understanding from God, so you do not know what you are speaking about.
Paul was speaking about women in GENERAL.

There are women that know the truth and are leaders and prophets.

Sonnet
March 25th, 2016, 12:59 AM
Do you think this is the only way the western world is in diametric opposition to the teachings of the Bible?

No. The world would seem to be in opposition to many of the teachings.

Sonnet
March 25th, 2016, 01:04 AM
You do not have understanding from God, so you do not know what you are speaking about.

That is very possible.


Paul was speaking about women in GENERAL.

There are women that know the truth and are leaders and prophets.

? You mean leaders of other women in the church?

Sonnet
March 25th, 2016, 01:09 AM
Scripture and the obedience to God is the way to a Godly relationship.

Nonetheless - belief in Christ without the necessity of scripture or preaching is, presumably, possible. Noah and Abraham being just two examples.

God's Truth
March 25th, 2016, 01:11 AM
That is very possible.



? You mean leaders of other women in the church?

There were men who knew the true gospel in the New Testament times. Why not have men teach men and women teach women?

God's Truth
March 25th, 2016, 01:12 AM
Nonetheless - belief in Christ without the necessity of scripture or preaching is, presumably, possible. Noah and Abraham being just two examples.

God spoke directly to them. How do you get we do not need the Holy Bible?

Sonnet
March 25th, 2016, 02:47 AM
God spoke directly to them. How do you get we do not need the Holy Bible?

I'm just covering all possibilities - those that never get to hear of the bible or from missionaries.

Sonnet
March 25th, 2016, 02:48 AM
There were men who knew the true gospel in the New Testament times. Why not have men teach men and women teach women?

Okay - that would seem to be the scriptural position.

Sonnet
March 25th, 2016, 02:54 AM
I'm searching on the net but struggling to find a formal defence of those that support the ordination of women.

Sonnet
March 25th, 2016, 03:23 AM
This http://www.womensordination.org/resources/why-ordination/ ('Why Ordination?' - in support of the ordination of women) makes no mention of 1 Cor 11:3; 14:34 and 1 Tim 2:11-14.

I infer that such scriptures would, in the site's view, be considered mere customs of the time.

Sonnet
March 26th, 2016, 12:01 AM
For those interested, I thought this was well written and informative (making the case against female ordination):
http://www.reformation21.org/articles/on-womens-ordination-a-response-to-dr-john-jefferson-davis-on-1-timothy-212.php

And this (for female ordination):
http://juniaproject.com/defusing-1-timothy-212-bomb/

Sonnet
March 31st, 2016, 12:21 AM
Paul said that it was Eve rather than Adam who was deceived (1 Tim 2). He (Paul) also said that it was through Adam than sin came into the world (Romans 5).

Thoughts anyone?

Sonnet
April 3rd, 2016, 02:44 AM
According to Paul - it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in church:

1 Corinthians 14:34-35
Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

Pretty explicit language.

Sonnet
April 3rd, 2016, 02:54 AM
Ok - I remain baffled by this issue. I would have thought that crystal clear reasons would have been given for the proscriptions against women Paul describes.

That the Christian church is split on this implies that I'm not alone.

I still say that this gives some justification for the sceptic.

Sonnet
April 3rd, 2016, 05:08 AM
Jesus said:
"If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand."

jamie
April 3rd, 2016, 07:50 AM
...for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.


Paul was asking that if a woman did not understand a teaching she should discuss it with her husband at home, not during the meeting.
This was in the interest of proper decorum and respect for God's assembly.

No big deal.

Sonnet
April 3rd, 2016, 07:57 AM
Paul was asking that if a woman did not understand a teaching she should discuss it with her husband at home, not during the meeting.
This was in the interest of proper decorum and respect for God's assembly.

No big deal.

Nevertheless, the Church is split over this issue.

It is a big deal for some men and women.

Sonnet
April 3rd, 2016, 08:01 AM
Paul was asking that if a woman did not understand a teaching she should discuss it with her husband at home, not during the meeting.
This was in the interest of proper decorum and respect for God's assembly.

No big deal.

Do the women in your church (if you do attend church) remain silent?

jamie
April 3rd, 2016, 08:07 AM
Do the women in your church (if you do attend church) remain silent?


Yes, they are not disruptive and when babies cry they take them to the mother's room to nurse, change diapers, etc.

Sonnet
April 3rd, 2016, 08:27 AM
Yes, they are not disruptive and when babies cry they take them to the mother's room to nurse, change diapers, etc.

I would say that your church is following the proscriptions Paul delineates regarding women. There does seem to be some ambivalence, but one would be hard pressed to argue against the complimentarian position.




Just in case:
Complementarianism is a theological view held by some in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, that men and women have different but complementary roles and responsibilities in marriage, family life, religious leadership, and elsewhere.

patrick jane
April 3rd, 2016, 08:37 AM
Ok - I remain baffled by this issue. I would have thought that crystal clear reasons would have been given for the proscriptions against women Paul describes.

That the Christian church is split on this implies that I'm not alone.

I still say that this gives some justification for the sceptic.


The Body of Christ is not split and neither is "the Church" - same thing. Women are as important as men in the body and and they can be ordained

God's Truth
April 3rd, 2016, 08:41 AM
Do the women in your church (if you do attend church) remain silent?

All churches/denominations teach some amount of falseness.

We are not to join a church/denomination to know God's Truth.

The only church we need to join is the body of Christ.

What Paul said was during the New Testament times, a time of culture respect, and that respect shows the importance of humbleness. Without humbleness no one will be saved.

Sonnet
April 3rd, 2016, 08:44 AM
The Body of Christ is not split and neither is "the Church" - same thing. Women are as important as men in the body and and they can be ordained

Not according to Paul.

You don't consider Catholics as part of the Church? Southern Baptists and some Protestant Churches?

God's Truth
April 3rd, 2016, 08:45 AM
We do not find God's Truth and get saved by joining the right denomination.

We must get Jesus' teachings. That is how we search for God.

We get Jesus' teachings in the Holy Bible.

We find God by doing what Jesus says.

There is no true denomination anymore and we do not have to be taught by man or women, only by the Holy Spirit.

Obey Jesus' teachings and he will save you and lead you to all Truth.

Sonnet
April 3rd, 2016, 08:54 AM
We do not find God's Truth and get saved by joining the right denomination.

We must get Jesus' teachings. That is how we search for God.

We get Jesus' teachings in the Holy Bible.

We find God by doing what Jesus says.

There is no true denomination anymore and we do not have to be taught by man or women, only by the Holy Spirit.

Obey Jesus' teachings and he will save you and lead you to all Truth.

Nevertheless, you don't join a denomination that has teaching contrary to scripture.
Would you join a denomination where the pastor was a woman?

God's Truth
April 3rd, 2016, 08:55 AM
Nevertheless, you don't join a denomination that has teaching contrary to scripture.
Would you join a denomination where the pastor was a woman?

I would not join ANY denomination.

They all teach falseness.

Sonnet
April 3rd, 2016, 08:57 AM
I would not join ANY denomination.

They all teach falseness.

You are a Christian not in Church because of their (per your view) false teaching?

God's Truth
April 3rd, 2016, 09:17 AM
You are a Christian not in Church because of their (per your view) false teaching?

I belong to the body of Christ, and the body of Christ is the only Church.

Sonnet
April 3rd, 2016, 09:30 AM
I belong to the body of Christ, and the body of Christ is the only Church.

So you can certainly relate to the unbeliever who is totally nonplussed by the divisions in the denominations?

God's Truth
April 3rd, 2016, 09:36 AM
So you can certainly relate to the unbeliever who is totally nonplussed by the divisions in the denominations?

I can understand perfectly.

One must decide if they want God's truth or some denomination's truth.

All denominations teach false doctrines.

If one wants the truth, then all they have to do is get Jesus' teachings from the Holy Bible and obey those teachings.

In the times of the New Testament, it was not the culture for women to teach and to be taught by other men.

As for in our homes, it is good that women have a humble disposition and do not try to push their beliefs on their resistant husbands.

Without humbleness, for the man and for the woman, one will never enter the kingdom.

Sonnet
April 3rd, 2016, 09:40 AM
I can understand perfectly.

One must decide if they want God's truth or some denomination's truth.

All denominations teach false doctrines.

If one wants the truth, then all they have to do is get Jesus' teachings from the Holy Bible and obey those teachings.

In the times of the New Testament, it was not the culture for women to teach and to be taught by other men.

As for in our homes, it is good that women have a humble disposition and do not try to push their beliefs on their resistant husbands.

Without humbleness, for the man and for the woman, one will never enter the kingdom.

Paul's reasons are not cultural. He refers to the creation story in 1 Tim 2:11ff and the hierarchical order in 1 Cor 11:3.

jamie
April 3rd, 2016, 09:41 AM
Would you join a denomination where the pastor was a woman?


Are you going by the obsolete Mosaic covenant or the Abrahamic covenant which does not allow gender discrimination? (Galatians 3:28)

Paul taught physical Israel as well as spiritual Israel. He taught both groups.

Sonnet
April 3rd, 2016, 09:44 AM
Are you going by the obsolete Mosaic covenant or the Abrahamic covenant which does not allow gender discrimination? (Galatians 3:28)

Paul taught physical Israel as well as spiritual Israel. He taught both groups.

Not too sure of your meaning.

God's Truth
April 3rd, 2016, 09:46 AM
Paul's reasons are not cultural. He refers to the creation story in 1 Tim 2:11ff and the hierarchical order in 1 Cor 11:3

Right, but we do not have nowadays churches to go to which preach the whole truth anyways.

Women should humble themselves when they want to learn, or if they wanted to teach in church. That is when there was a church to be taught at, when the revelations were just being given.

Men have to be humble, as well as women. Men are to be humble and give up their lives for their wife and women are to be humble and treat her husband with respect, respect which shows her humbleness.

God's Truth
April 3rd, 2016, 09:49 AM
If there was a believing wife in the home, and an unbeliever husband...the wife cannot be forceful and push her beliefs on her husband. Likewise, if there was a believing husband and an unbelieving wife, he is not to force his beliefs on her. Both must be humble.

Sonnet
April 3rd, 2016, 10:01 AM
Right, but we do not have nowadays churches to go to which preach the whole truth anyways.

Women should humble themselves when they want to learn, or if they wanted to teach in church. That is when there was a church to be taught at, when the revelations were just being given.

Men have to be humble, as well as women. Men are to be humble and give up their lives for their wife and women are to be humble and treat her husband with respect, respect which shows her humbleness.

You are describing those that claim to follow Christ as being in total disarray aren't you? No doubt some of those denominations would consider your interpretation of scripture as false too.

How can the unbeliever find his way out of such a maze?

Sonnet
April 3rd, 2016, 10:14 AM
...and without any assurance that scripture is truth...

God's Truth
April 3rd, 2016, 10:51 AM
You are describing those that claim to follow Christ as being in total disarray aren't you? No doubt some of those denominations would consider your interpretation of scripture as false too.

How can the unbeliever find his way out of such a maze?

I will tell you how, and it is the only Way.

The words of God are powerful and true.

All you have to do is get Jesus' teachings as written in the Holy Bible and do what Jesus says.

All denominations have people who follow what the preacher says and do not check on it according to the Bible.

Satan has ensnared many to preach falseness.

Jesus says he will reveal himself to those who obey.

Even Solomon, son of king David had to search for God on his own.

God's Truth
April 3rd, 2016, 10:52 AM
...and without any assurance that scripture is truth...

You can find out for yourself without a doubt if the scriptures are true.

I tell you, I know for a fact, but you can know for sure for yourself.

Sonnet
April 3rd, 2016, 10:59 AM
Right, but we do not have nowadays churches to go to which preach the whole truth anyways.

Women should humble themselves when they want to learn, or if they wanted to teach in church. That is when there was a church to be taught at, when the revelations were just being given.

Men have to be humble, as well as women. Men are to be humble and give up their lives for their wife and women are to be humble and treat her husband with respect, respect which shows her humbleness.

Teach men? Or just teach women?

God's Truth
April 3rd, 2016, 11:01 AM
Teach men? Or just teach women?

Teach anyone who is willing to listen.

jamie
April 3rd, 2016, 11:11 AM
Not too sure of your meaning.


The Abrahamic covenant does not allow gender discrimination. (Galatians 3:28)

Sonnet
April 3rd, 2016, 11:14 AM
Teach anyone who is willing to listen.

Right - so you don't agree with Paul when he said that a woman should not teach and have authority over a man?

How is the unbeliever supposed to make sense of what scripture appears to say and the various interpretations of it?

Sonnet
April 3rd, 2016, 11:17 AM
The Abrahamic covenant does not allow gender discrimination. (Galatians 3:28)

Nevertheless, you are a complimentarian.

jamie
April 3rd, 2016, 11:17 AM
How is the unbeliever supposed to make sense of what scripture appears to say and the various interpretations of it?


Ask questions.

jamie
April 3rd, 2016, 11:19 AM
Nevertheless, you are a complimentarian.


Yes.

jamie
April 3rd, 2016, 11:29 AM
Right - so you don't agree with Paul when he said that a woman should not teach and have authority over a man?


Paul for the most part was teaching Jews and Messianic Gentiles in the context of the Mosaic law.

Paul was a rabbi of the Pharisee sect so his background was in the Mosaic law, which he correctly taught cannot produce salvation.

Be careful with Paul's teachings. (2 Peter 3:16)

Sonnet
April 3rd, 2016, 12:36 PM
Ask questions.

Why would a omniscient God furnish man with such a brief explanation for such an important matter?
I don't get it.

jamie
April 3rd, 2016, 01:23 PM
Why would a omniscient God furnish man with such a brief explanation for such an important matter?
I don't get it.


The overwhelming majority of people will be resurrected at the Last Day, however, Jesus is looking for a few men and women to serve with him in the kingdom of God. Jesus will rule over all nations.

Sonnet
April 3rd, 2016, 09:53 PM
The overwhelming majority of people will be resurrected at the Last Day, however, Jesus is looking for a few men and women to serve with him in the kingdom of God. Jesus will rule over all nations.

??

Perhaps I didn't write clearly.

Why would a omniscient God furnish man with such a brief explanation for such an important matter? Woman are not to teach and have authority because Eve was created after (and for) Adam and because Eve (and not Adam) was deceived. That's it?

I don't get it. Even those that claim to be Christians are left baffled - resorting to jumping through hoops to reinterpret Paul's words because they cannot imagine Paul said what he seems to say. I wonder if there is a correlation between such Christians and belief in Darwinism (where such proscriptions against women would not be logical).

Sonnet
April 3rd, 2016, 09:54 PM
The overwhelming majority of people will be resurrected at the Last Day, however, Jesus is looking for a few men and women to serve with him in the kingdom of God. Jesus will rule over all nations.

Matthew 7:13
Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.