Neutering God for Women's Rights

[ScottA]

If you're saying that 1 Timothy 2:12 proves that women cannot be in leadership; that the words that Paul wrote to that church 2000 years ago are God's command for his church today, then yes, that is your interpretation.

Like I said, do you take the Bible literally in all other matters - men having short hair, for example; women not wearing gold in church? How do you reconcile God's, apparent, command for women to be silent, with his instructions about how women should prophesy?

Really? You are saying that God has commanded that no woman should lead worship, or a local congregation - but that sometimes he goes against his own command?
So how can we trust a God who apparently contradicts himself?
God is Spirit; neither male nor female.
He is a personal God who wants a personal relationship with us; he is not an "it", so we need to say "him" or "her". All the prophets and Jesus referred to God as "he" and as Father. That doesn't mean he is male, as we define maleness - Scripture speaks of him giving birth, bringing to new life, and tells of his compassion, nurture, loving kindness and so on.

The phrase "standard that he has established for his own purpose", no doubt refers to your firm belief that Paul's words to that church amount to a command from God; an unbreakable, unshakeable order that has to be obeyed for all time. Because you are so certain that this is so, then obviously you are not going to believe anyone who says that God has called them to lead a church - their experience contradicts your belief, so clearly it is they who are at fault/mistaken.

I am not saying that. Please don't misunderstand. What I am saying, is that God has manifest in His creation of humanity a standard that includes walking papers for men and women after the pattern that He has given by His own example - and we should fall inline with His will and intentions, INSTEAD of interpreting things for ourselves.

But if we understand His manifestation and His example of Him being male and ALL the church (male and female alike) being female (as His bride)...then NO MAN OR WOMEN should speak out in leadership, but ALL should be silent, meaning: The only word and the only teaching that is received by the church, is from God...via His word, or the Holy Spirit. Period.

His standard and His will is clear...and we either abide in it - or not.

 

[Strong in Him]

I am not saying that. Please don't misunderstand. What I am saying, is that God has manifest in His creation of humanity a standard that includes walking papers for men and women after the pattern that He has given by His own example - and we should fall inline with His will and intentions, INSTEAD of interpreting things for ourselves.

The issue of male headship relates to marriage, not church leadership.
It is God's will and intention that I preach the Gospel; just as the woman at the well went and told people she had met the Messiah and brought them to Jesus. The Great Commission is not for men only. I wish it was, it would make for an easy life. I could do what I wanted and if people failed to hear the Gospel and meet the Lord it was the men's fault; nothing to do with me.

But if we understand His manifestation and His example of Him being male and ALL the church (male and female alike) being female (as His bride)...then NO MAN OR WOMEN should speak out in leadership,

You're kidding, right?

God's people have always had leaders; Jacob's sons, heads of the 12 tribes; Moses; the 70 elders that he appointed to lead; Joshua; the judges - which included Deborah; and the prophets, some of whom were women also. God wanted the people to trust these leaders, and him, instead of asking for earthly kings like all the other countries had. When the people protested, he allowed earthly kings - some were good and lead people in the Lord's ways; some were wicked and lead them astray.

The Lord is Lord; creator of all things, head of the church and the body of Christ. He is more than capable of running all things by himself, but the amazing thing is that he allows us the privilege of working with him - co-workers with the Lord, under his leadership.

but ALL should be silent, meaning: The only word and the only teaching that is received by the church, is from God...via His word, or the Holy Spirit. Period.

And how does the Holy Spirit speak and teach us? Whose voice does he use so that we can all hear him? God has always spoken to people who are close enough to him to hear; the Creator of the universe chooses to use, and speak to and through, his creation. He has always done this - the prophets all said, "thus saith the Lord".
Jesus taught us that we can have a relationship with God, that we can pray, talk to him and make requests and ask anything of him. That's not being silent.
Of course we receive our teaching from the Lord; where else? But he chooses to speak through men, and women.

 

[ScottA]

The issue of male headship relates to marriage, not church leadership.
It is God's will and intention that I preach the Gospel; just as the woman at the well went and told people she had met the Messiah and brought them to Jesus. The Great Commission is not for men only. I wish it was, it would make for an easy life. I could do what I wanted and if people failed to hear the Gospel and meet the Lord it was the men's fault; nothing to do with me.

That is two separate issues:

1. It is marriage that is the example of leadership in the church, revealed by Paul as a former "mystery" that we should now know of, and it should no longer be a mystery, but we should be acting on it.
2. The woman at the well was a "witness" of Christ, not a leader in the church. The Great Commission is to "take" and "tell" the "good news"...not, to lead a movement contrary to the scriptures, by word and by example.

You're kidding, right?

God's people have always had leaders; Jacob's sons, heads of the 12 tribes; Moses; the 70 elders that he appointed to lead; Joshua; the judges - which included Deborah; and the prophets, some of whom were women also. God wanted the people to trust these leaders, and him, instead of asking for earthly kings like all the other countries had. When the people protested, he allowed earthly kings - some were good and lead people in the Lord's ways; some were wicked and lead them astray.

The Lord is Lord; creator of all things, head of the church and the body of Christ. He is more than capable of running all things by himself, but the amazing thing is that he allows us the privilege of working with him - co-workers with the Lord, under his leadership.

Was the veil torn or not? No, I'm not kidding. There is One leader over the church, and One only. But you make "workers" "leaders", which they are not.

And how does the Holy Spirit speak and teach us? Whose voice does he use so that we can all hear him? God has always spoken to people who are close enough to him to hear; the Creator of the universe chooses to use, and speak to and through, his creation. He has always done this - the prophets all said, "thus saith the Lord".
Jesus taught us that we can have a relationship with God, that we can pray, talk to him and make requests and ask anything of him. That's not being silent.
Of course we receive our teaching from the Lord; where else? But he chooses to speak through men, and women.

The Holy Spirit teaches all things, "all truth", by writing it upon our hearts - in private.

As for whose voice does God use? Paul explained that too: "How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written:

“How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace,
Who bring glad tidings of good things!” Romans 10:14-15 But, those who preach, are not to speak their own words - this is what is meant by "keep silent."

But we are not to confuse preaching and sharing the gospel with portraying Christ over the church - but are to "lead" by example, wherein there is no correct way, except the way in which He set forth.

So, then, if we are to follow and serve according to what we have been taught, no word of man should be preached, and no woman should stand before anyone to preach or teach as a leader. But that is not to say that women are not to preach or teach (heaven forbid) - but rather, that they are not to lead.

And if we are to portray the order of leadership as we have been taught, we will portray Christ over all the church, just as a man is over his wife...which is to say: just is Christ is over the church. This is what we have from God.

 

[tucker58]

I'm a Jesus Christ Christian. I don't know any Christian that puts Nicea before Christ. Therefore the outreach if there is any needed should be toward those who call themselves Nicene Christians. Likely so because they have little understanding of Nicea's place in history.

However, that's not what is being discussed here. And apparently from what you're trying to say, you believe women are lesser beings to men. Sexism by definition is one sex, typically male, having authority and control over the opposite sex; women.
When God is a spirit and without gender, one sex is not then superior to the other under the authority of a sexless God.

The passages in God's word prove that a male god is a man made concept contrary to the new covenant Jesus brought to the world. And that the male god image set by the Hebrews was a cultural one due to the earthly Patriarchy they had in place.

Jesus came to save all people in the world not just males. John 3:16 says about Salvation and to whom it is offered, whosoever.... It does not state, for God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that any male who believeth in him shall not perish but have everlasting life.

Women and men wept for Jesus at the altar he died upon to save the whole world. The cross. There was no divide between the sexes there. All were one in the eyes of Christ. Because he came to save all people. Not, as the Jewish tradition he was born into, would have warranted had he followed that, his dying to save the men of the world so that they could lead the women in their lives to him.

Galatians 3:26-28. We are all one in Jesus Christ. There is no free person, no slave, no Greek, no Jew, no Arab, no difference in who Jesus died for and whom are loved by God eternally.
John 1:29. Jesus was the Lamb who took away the sins of the world. Not the man's world. The world.
A woman was the one who found Jesus' tomb empty. Women were prophetesses in the Bible. What we'd call pastors today. Women walked with the Disciples and Jesus in his ministry. Jesus took the woman whom he saved from stoning with him into his company when he preached his truth to those who would receive him.

Jesus preached against religion. Against sexism. And now over 2000 years later those who follow his spirit argue sexism is a factor?And that scripture backs it up?

No.
But to each their own. Those who believe sexism is the right path to take following the spirit that gave itself to the world in the form of a person whom we could see and relate to, who died after suffering unimaginable torture in order to write a new covenant with his blood, and save the world from their sins if they only believed in him, believe now that sexism, which is what is the heart of what is argued here by some men, is holy? Is righteous? Is of God? Is of Jesus and his ministry?
Jesus died to save the world and reiterate the sexism that existed in the Hebrew culture in his day?

And to state that in a new manner, in a new thread, the inroad is asking if people have neutered God? in the name of women's rights? And what is argued against scripture that say absolutely not, is a mindset that says it must be, yes! Instead.

I clearly can't reason with that. Proof is in the writing of retorts that argue against scripture and reason in order to promote the notion that God is a Chauvinist.
I can't argue with the intention that seeks to reiterate God has been neutered so that women could feel equal to men in all things because that and according to Jesus' own example when women traveled with his Disciples, which would not happen in his time due to that cultural gender divide, because those type teachings by men are unholy.

I'll step out now and pray for those who continue their pursuit of arguing to persuade Christian's the OP answer must be, yes. Even though Jesus never said it was. In fact, he died to prove it was not true. And change the culture of the time in the process when that is what was intended to free all people from their sins.

Matthew 7

Circle Christ I have not actually said what it is that I believe . All I said was that this is a Nicene Christian message board and that anything that disagrees with the Nicene beliefs are considered unothodox according to the mission statement of this forum. At the same time this forum was created so that unorthodox could be discussed as well as the orthodox, which is awesome!

Circle Christ, what you are presenting in this topic could possibilly be closer to real, but it is unothodox. And Circle Christ I really enjoy reading what you are writing, you are pretty gifted when it comes to the English language and using it to present a concept. To be honest with you, I am pretty more open minded about things than most Christians are, I just don't talk about it much.


In fact, he died to prove it was not true. And change the culture of the time in the process when that is what was intended to free all people from their sins.

!

 

[Strong in Him]

Was the veil torn or not? No, I'm not kidding. There is One leader over the church, and One only. But you make "workers" "leaders", which they are not.

Christ is head of the church, that's not in dispute.

But local congregations have, and certainly need, leaders.
A vicar/Minister is the leader because he/she carries the can, guides the church to carry out the Lord's will and plans, leads them in day to day decisions - like building programmes, who to give money to, who to appoint as stewards, youth workers and so on. Someone has to make decisions; even if they put the matter to the church/church council, someone has to say "we need to stop debating this now and vote". Even if you had a very small church and they all discussed, and prayed about, everything, I am sure that someone would naturally take the lead in such discussions, bring everyone to order and that kind of thing.
Ministers are also the face of the church in the community. If someone wants a funeral arranged, they contact the Vicar/Minister, if someone is homeless or in great distress they can turn up at a vicarage to ask for help. If someone wants to make a suggestion/complaint to the church they will address the letter to the Minister/vicar.
In the NT the churches all had elders, overseers and other leaders. I don't get why you are so against them. God appoints leaders - it doesn't mean he is abdicating his authority, nor that the leaders are trying to usurp it.

 

[ScottA]

Christ is head of the church, that's not in dispute.

But local congregations have, and certainly need, leaders.
A vicar/Minister is the leader because he/she carries the can, guides the church to carry out the Lord's will and plans, leads them in day to day decisions - like building programmes, who to give money to, who to appoint as stewards, youth workers and so on. Someone has to make decisions; even if they put the matter to the church/church council, someone has to say "we need to stop debating this now and vote". Even if you had a very small church and they all discussed, and prayed about, everything, I am sure that someone would naturally take the lead in such discussions, bring everyone to order and that kind of thing.
Ministers are also the face of the church in the community. If someone wants a funeral arranged, they contact the Vicar/Minister, if someone is homeless or in great distress they can turn up at a vicarage to ask for help. If someone wants to make a suggestion/complaint to the church they will address the letter to the Minister/vicar.
In the NT the churches all had elders, overseers and other leaders. I don't get why you are so against them. God appoints leaders - it doesn't mean he is abdicating his authority, nor that the leaders are trying to usurp it.

Those who follow do not lead.

 

[Strong in Him]

Those who follow do not lead.

Of course they do.
All Christians follow Jesus, but even he appointed leaders.

 

[ScottA]

Of course they do.
All Christians follow Jesus, but even he appointed leaders.

Servants with One Master.

 

[Imagican]

If you're saying that 1 Timothy 2:12 proves that women cannot be in leadership; that the words that Paul wrote to that church 2000 years ago are God's command for his church today, then yes, that is your interpretation.

Like I said, do you take the Bible literally in all other matters - men having short hair, for example; women not wearing gold in church? How do you reconcile God's, apparent, command for women to be silent, with his instructions about how women should prophesy?



God is Spirit; neither male nor female.
He is a personal God who wants a personal relationship with us; he is not an "it", so we need to say "him" or "her". All the prophets and Jesus referred to God as "he" and as Father. That doesn't mean he is male, as we define maleness - Scripture speaks of him giving birth, bringing to new life, and tells of his compassion, nurture, loving kindness and so on.

The phrase "standard that he has established for his own purpose", no doubt refers to your firm belief that Paul's words to that church amount to a command from God; an unbreakable, unshakeable order that has to be obeyed for all time. Because you are so certain that this is so, then obviously you are not going to believe anyone who says that God has called them to lead a church - their experience contradicts your belief, so clearly it is they who are at fault/mistaken.



Really? You are saying that God has commanded that no woman should lead worship, or a local congregation - but that sometimes he goes against his own command?
So how can we trust a God who apparently contradicts himself?

That's TOO funny. God is neither male nor female, HE is a personal God.

Now you have me wondering????? Are we speaking of 'different Gods'? For it is a 'fact' that there are 'gods many'. And throughout history, we can see that people have worshiped many 'different gods'.

For you to be able to 'say' that God is not 'masculine' or 'male' would pretty much contradict using the word 'Him' as having any sense of 'gender'. And let us also take into consideration that HE is Father as well.

Now, I'm not an English major, but from what little I do know about English, the terms He, Father, His, Him,,,,,,,,,,these are 'all' forms of a 'masculine pronoun'. If God is not 'gender' in nature, then 'why' would HE have us call Him Father, Him, He, etc..............?

Once again, I wonder if you actually read what you type? What I gather from what you offered in this post, one can 'make up' whatever they 'want' God to be and that's OK. That we can 'invent' whatever God we choose and somehow that 'created god' exists. But in truth, only in one's own imagination. Over and over again you speak of a 'God' that I do not comprehend. And so far I have yet to guess what denomination you profess to follow. For I know of 'no' denomination that teaches what you so often offer.

You speak of Paul's words being for the 'church' two thousand years ago. God is eternal. If His will was that women NOT be 'church leaders' two thousand years ago, if the Earth remains for another two thousand years, that won't alter His will.

Adam was created FIRST. Does that somehow offend you? Eve, (woman), was created 'for' Adam. No where in the Entire Bible are we offered that women are to be 'leaders' of that which was created 'first'. Not my order of 'creation', but that of God's. Are you offering that you can alter His will? If so, then you and I are talking about 'different Gods'.

Paul states in the few places where he is offering his 'opinion' and states it 'clearly'. Everything else that he offers we can 'bank' on it being God's Word just as those uttered by Christ. If the Spirit of Christ, (God), led Paul to speak His Words, then they are indeed God's commandments or instruction. Otherwise you don't really believe that those words are the inspired Word of God. That is not up for debate for anyone professing to believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God.

The God that I profess to believe in has made it perfectly clear through His inspired Word, that women 'cannot' be 'church leaders'. They shall not, according to His Word, usurp the authority of men. That you are arguing against this makes me wonder how you somehow missed these instructions concerning the 'place of women in the church'. For about 'five thousand years', those that have believed in the God of the Hebrews understood this without question. For the Torah clearly defined 'who' and 'what' the leadership of the temple would be.

Christ did 'not' alter this. While all are given equal opportunity for Salvation, (forgiveness), the authority so far as 'leadership' of His Church is established based on God's will. Not yours or mine. Paul states that the 'leaders' of the 'Church' must be husbands of one wife whose children are obedient. That means that a 'true' Church leader inspired by God or His Son 'must' have children as well as being married to one wife. So any pastor or 'church leader' that does not have obedient children and one wife is not only incapable of being 'truly' chosen by God to be the 'leader' of The Church, they are in utter disobedience in fooling themselves and others.

You know, for many years I struggled over whether I could place my faith in 'all' the Bible. At one point I had to choose whether it 'is' or whether it isn't the inspired Word of God. I came to realization that if it isn't, then there is not reason to place 'any' faith in 'any' of it. It was 'then' that I came to the point that I 'was' able to accept and believe God's Word in it's entirety. Not 'bits and pieces' that pleased me. But even those parts that didn't. That is 'how' we learn to be 'obedient' to His will instead of our own.

No matter how hard you try to hammer your beliefs home, what you seem oblivious to is that the subject really isn't debatable. What you continually offer i contrary to the very 'book' you say you believe in. Yet you continually 'make up' different understanding than what is actually offered as plainly as possible.

So all I can conclude is that you just don't 'like' the idea that men were chosen by God to be the leaders. Don't like the idea that Adam was created 'first' and then Eve was created 'for' Adam, from Adam. Eve is a 'part' of Adam, not Adam a 'part of Eve'. Just like the 'firstborn' is the 'firstborn' and there is nothing anyone can 'do' to alter the 'truth' except in their own mind. The second born can certainly 'pretend' to be 'first', but in reality their 'thoughts' don't alter the truth except in their own 'mind'. There was a 'reason' that God made 'man' first. In his image. And no where in the entire Bible does it state that 'woman' was created in the 'image of God'. If you can find it, please, by all means, show us where it is offered.

Blessings,

MEC

Oh, and when I sign out with the word, 'Blessings', it is a hope, not something I can offer. You know, like 'amen' or God willing. Not my blessings, for I have no such authority. But my hope is that regardless of our shortcomings, we can all receive God's Blessings. So if you want to read it correctly, it would sound something like this: "May you receive God's Blessings in abundance". That is my hope for all of God's children.

 

[Strong in Him]

That's TOO funny. God is neither male nor female, HE is a personal God.

Sorry, did you actually read what I wrote? Let me quote it for you again, and emphasise what I am saying.

God is Spirit; neither male nor female.
He is a personal God who wants a personal relationship with us; he is not an "it", so we need to say "him" or "her". All the prophets and Jesus referred to God as "he" and as Father. That doesn't mean he is male, as we define maleness - Scripture speaks of him giving birth, bringing to new life, and tells of his compassion, nurture, loving kindness and so on.

For you to be able to 'say' that God is not 'masculine' or 'male' would pretty much contradict using the word 'Him' as having any sense of 'gender'. And let us also take into consideration that HE is Father as well.

Like I said, you didn't read what I wrote.
God is Spirit, John 4:24. Yes of course Jesus called him Father, just as we can, but he is Spirit, NOT a man. There is a Scripture which says " 'am I a man that I should lie?', says the Lord."

Once again, I wonder if you actually read what you type?

Do you read what I type; that's the question?
Can you explain to me how a Spirit is male?

You speak of Paul's words being for the 'church' two thousand years ago. God is eternal. If His will was that women NOT be 'church leaders' two thousand years ago, if the Earth remains for another two thousand years, that won't alter His will.

I'm not sure that you understand - THAT is what I'm disputing. I disagree that Paul's words to Timothy that women should be silent in church ARE a command for women for all time. Largely because it contradicts what it elsewhere in the NT, and Scripture doesn't contradict itself. Paul instructed women how to pray and prophesy; why would he then say they should all be silent? Paul told us that the Spirit gives gifts, including the gift of teaching, 1 Corinthians 12:28, Pastor, Ephesians 4:13 and evangelist, 1 Corinthians 12:28. There is evidence of these in the Gospels (maybe not Pastor), and everyone is commanded to preach the Gospel, baptise, teach and make disciples, Matthew 28:19-20. So why would Paul then say that women can't teach?

For all these reasons, and several more, I am saying that Paul's words "I do not permit a woman to teach" are NOT a command from God for all time.

And like I said, do you take the Bible literally in other matters? Are Paul's words that it is a disgrace for men to have long hair, God's command for all time? If so, then you're a bit stuck because Paul/God does not say how long is long.
Are Paul's words that women shouldn't wear gold a command for all time? If so, what is you wife's wedding ring made of?

Adam was created FIRST. Does that somehow offend you? Eve, (woman), was created 'for' Adam. No where in the Entire Bible are we offered that women are to be 'leaders' of that which was created 'first'.

No, it doesn't offend me.
Adam was created and then God said, "it is not good for man to be alone"; Eve was created as a companion for Adam, NOT because he needed someone to make him feel superior.
Adam was created before Eve - so? Snails were created before Adam; what does that mean?

Paul states in the few places where he is offering his 'opinion' and states it 'clearly'. Everything else that he offers we can 'bank' on it being God's Word just as those uttered by Christ.

You can make that assumption about God's word if you wish; I'm not going to. Especially where we see evidence, elsewhere, that the opposite happened.
Deborah was judge over the whole nation and a prophetess,
Huldah was a prophetess,
Phoebe was a deacon,
Euodia, Syntyche and several others were deaconesses or co-workers in the church,
Priscilla taught Apollos.

If you are insisting that it is God's will that women never lead, or teach men, then you need to explain these inconsistencies in his word. Plus the fact that hundreds of women are saying today that he has call them to be preachers and Ministers. If ONE woman, in the whole history of the church, had said this and every male theologian or member of the clergy said "no, you're wrong", then it would be fair to say that that one woman had probably misheard God or misinterpreted his word. But thousands testify, and have testified, to this call on their lives - and it is male clergy, who are in authority over them, i.e higher up in the church, who have confirmed it and trained them for the task.

The God that I profess to believe in has made it perfectly clear through His inspired Word, that women 'cannot' be 'church leaders'.

That's how you understand those verses in his word - fine; thousands don't.

They shall not, according to His Word, usurp the authority of men.

And that's another thing which doesn't make sense, which I have asked about and which has not been explained.
ALL authority is from God and was given to Jesus after the resurrection, Matthew 28:19. GOD gives authority; no one can assume it for themselves.
If a woman says that God has called her to be a preacher or Minister, that call and authority come from God. Of course she may have got it wrong, which is why the call needs to be tested. If it is, if male clergy conclude that God has called her to do this, and help, mentor, support and train her, and if the congregation accept her and her ministry and believe that she is also called in this way - how has she snatched authority from them?
If she is ordained as a curate, and is under a male vicar/Minister, who is under a male bishop/
superintendent, who is under a male archbishop, how has she snatched authority from them, by force - usurp = snatch violently by force? In the UK the Archbishop of Canterbury is the top bishop in the Anglican church - but the human being who is actually and literally head of the church, is the Queen. Parliament recommend that a certain person be ordained as bishop, but the Queen has the right to overrule. I don't think she ever has done - unlike centuries ago where Henry VIII and so on were actively involved in church appointments - but she has that right. So those in the Anglican church who argue that women shouldn't be ordained on the grounds of authority, have either not realised, or are ignoring, the fact that a woman is the human head of their church.

So tell me, how exactly does a female Minister, who is there with the knowledge and permission of her church, snatch God given authority from men?

No matter how hard you try to hammer your beliefs home, what you seem oblivious to is that the subject really isn't debatable. What you continually offer i contrary to the very 'book' you say you believe in. Yet you continually 'make up' different understanding than what is actually offered as plainly as possible.

I'm not trying to "hammer my beliefs home". This matter is ALL about interpretation of Scripture.
If you believe that every word of Scripture is literal, and not only that, applies to us today, irrespective of who it was written to and what kind of writing it is; as long as you treat ALL Scripture that way - i.e verses about long hair, covering the hair, not wearing gold, and keeping all of the Jewish law, because that is still in Scripture - then that's fine and you are showing your belief and your consistency.
I'm saying that these verses are not to be taken in that way - and many male clergy and theologians agree with me, so I am not writing this as a feminist. largely, as I said, because they contradict other Scriptures and also because God is calling women to serve him in this way today. How people react to that last statement depends on their point of view. If they support women being clergy, then God's call is clear evidence of his will; if they don't, then in their view the women are being disobedient, unbelieving, rebellious feminists only out to further their own agenda.

So all I can conclude is that you just don't 'like' the idea that men were chosen by God to be the leaders. Don't like the idea that Adam was created 'first' and then Eve was created 'for' Adam, from Adam. Eve is a 'part' of Adam, not Adam a 'part of Eve'.

No, I don't like your interpretation that being created first means leader.
How many people in the OT were the second born, or even the youngest, and went on to be leaders, or God's chosen? His promise to Rebekah about her children was that the elder shall serve the younger. Being created first does not mean superiority or give special privilege - although male pride might wish that it was so.

Thank you for your words about blessings; may you be blessed too.

 

[Imagican]

Here you go -
Genesis 1:27:
So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

(Emphasis mine, obviously)

(Edit to add - I see the default translation here, uses "man", instead of "mankind", as is often done in the bible. The fact that man and mankind is often used interchangeably, doesn't mean that it suddenly doesn't include women.

I have to say this - being told that I am not created in the image of God, is one of the most offensive things I've ever heard from another Christian.

So you like 'making up' what the words mean instead of accepting them as offered? I see.

Considering that the Bible STATES that God created Adam 'first' and the indication is that 'woman' came as an 'afterthought'. In other words, the Bible indicates that 'in the beginning Adam was created as an individual entity. It was only 'later' that God realized that Adam needed a companion that Eve was created. Remember? God had Adam name all the animals in an attempt to find one suitable to be a companion. When one wasn't found, 'that's' when God took from Adam's body and created Eve.

So the wording isn't mistranslated. It is perfectly clear that Adam was 'first formed' and then 'later' God created Eve 'from Adam'. We have no idea how much time passed between the creation of Adam and then the formation of Eve. A day, a month, a year, ten thousand years. The Bible is not specific on this point. But that Adam was created 'whole' and 'first' is without debate.

God created 'man' first. Not 'mankind'. That is something that obviously didn't occur until 'after' He created Adam.

Man was 'first created', then woman 'from' man.

Nice try though. Just goes to show everyone else the lengths some go to in an attempt to make the Bible 'fit' what they 'want' to believe instead of what it actually offers. Thanks for your response.

You know, if someone had to go through the entire Bible restructuring and rewording every sentence offered, it would only go to show that God's not powerful enough to preserve His own Word and we NEED to 'recreate' the Bible in 'our own image'.

And your response that you find it offensive that you 'weren't created in the image of God? That is the 'exact' sentiment that Satan used against Eve. He knew she was envious of the relationship between God and man and when Satan offered that she could be 'like God Himself', she couldn't resist. That 'same spirit' exists today in much more abundance than it did in the 'garden'. MY way or NO way. me, me, me. What's in it for me and I deserve any and everything anyone else has been given.

Eve was 'not' created in the image of God. God is masculine by His very nature of being God. Not a 'goddess'. But God. Masculine. Why do you suppose that in the entire Bible, God is referred to as HE? Father?

If what we are offered in the first chapter of Genesis is in reference to the 'creation' offered in the second chapter, then it's obvious that 'time' elapsed before God 'created' Eve from Adam. How much? We don't know. But a substantial amount of time if Adam named all the animals 'before' Eve was created 'from' Adam.

If God is masculine, then it was 'man' that was created in 'His image'. A female is certainly 'not' the image of a 'male'.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Strong in Him]

Strong In Him,

It's not 'male pride' to recognize the truth. It's female 'false pride' that leads them to believe that they are 'equal' to men. The 'same false pride' that led Eve to worship the serpent rather than God.

Do you know what the word 'equal' means? It means: 'the same'.

I don't know how anyone can believe that men and women are: the same.

Yet the rise of homosexuality would certainly indicate that many 'believe' that they are 'the same' or that the differences 'don't matter' any more.

So, now, men, in their ever present need to dominate 'made up' the masculinity of God in order to appease their inherent pride?

You've 'god to be joking', right? And all this time the 'poor' women were 'held back' by the domineering men.

Guess you don't like that part of the Bible where God 'explained' to Eve that she would be submissive to her husband. Or do you 'not understand it'?

That wasn't a 'curse'. That was simply God explaining to her what she should have already 'known'. Just like a child 'should' know that they are to listen to their parents. A 'good' child. So too should Eve have recognized 'her place' without having it spelled out in 'black and white'. If she had followed what she 'knew' she should have been following the event with the serpent would never have taken place. And today we still see women making their decisions on emotions rather than what they instinctively 'know' they 'should' be basing their decisions on. And look at the world in which we live today...... A pretty good reflection of the influence of women when they veer from their designated 'place' as designed by God. Not me. I created neither Adam nor Eve. I didn't choose the 'order' nor the reason for that 'order'. So don't blame me. I'm just the messenger.

You know, the Bible states that women 'can be saved' too. But it also explains that they have specific duties to follow in order to 'be saved' And simply saying: "I believe in Jesus" is barely the beginning of understanding. It certainly doesn't equal 'true faith'. True faith also includes 'following as directed'. That is why Paul uses the word 'if' when stating the duties of the female that wishes to be forgiven.

See, you obviously believe that 'because' some men have taken advantage of the natural order that the natural order is 'wrong'. Not my fault that sin exists nor that there are men that abuse women. But I know this too: the Bible warns us to 'accept' our 'place' in this world. That instead of 'fighting for our rights', we be thankful for our very existence. Instead of 'focusing on self', we focus on God and others.

So if one is a 'true follower', the 'ways of this world' don't really matter. It's those that 'love this world' that fight the hardest to have as much of it as possible 'for themselves'. Me, me, me. It's 'my world' and nobody is going to 'stop me' from having it 'my way'.

I promised myself a few weeks ago that I wasn't going to continue in this discussion 'with you' any longer. Your posts actually scare me when I read them. Scare me 'for others'. I know better but there is the possibility that someone that doesn't know the 'truth' would find your words 'more appealing' and be so deceived. You know what the Bible says about 'itching ears'.....

I've offered about all I can think of to try and point out the 'truth' but it seems that it's not really about 'the truth' but you having 'your way'. So be it. I still love you though and all I can hope is that the proper seeds have been planted and it's up to others to nourish them and get them to grow. And that 'is my belief'.

Blessings,

MEC

Well I'm sorry but I guess I'm done too then.

I have said, many times, that this is about how we interpret Scripture. I have asked if you interpret it literally and apply ALL of it today. I have asked questions about the texts that don't make sense, or where a literal reading is contradicted elsewhere in Scripture. I have said that certain verses don't make sense in the light of other Scriptures and the evidence today of how God is working.
I have said all this and asked for your understanding of it.

Yet I'm constantly getting responses like, "guess you don't like it", "guess you just want your way", "don't think about yourself, it's not me, me, me".

If you can't answer the points I make; say so.
If you don't understand, ask me to explain.
And if at the end of all that, you still don't agree, then fine; we'll agree to disagree.
But I'm not spending considerable time writing a response to you, sometimes with Scripture, to be dismissed with the words "guess you just don't like what is written."

To be quite honest, none of these debates make any difference to me nor alter my position.
I am not a Minister, but I am a lay preacher of the Gospel. I have been doing this for 13 years, (including my training), and was accredited by the church 9 years ago. I know I'm called to do this and so does the church. Even if I were to go to my Superintendent and say "I resign; some guy on the internet has persuaded me that I shouldn't be doing this"; he wouldn't accept it. He'd explain to me why my understanding of Scripture was wrong. Even if, for some reason, he was to accept what I said, and all the reasons I gave - your arguments - nothing can change the fact that I have been preaching the Gospel for 13 years. What are you saying, that all those sermons are invalid; preached by someone who "doesn't like" Scripture?

I doubt you'll reply to this, but it doesn't matter.
As I, and others have said, if you don't agree with female preachers and/or Ministers, go to a church where there aren't any.

All the best.

 

[squirrel123]

So I'm through with the 'women' are greater than men threads. If that's what they 'believe' then nothing I can do, (short of stepping into a boxing ring with one), can alter it. At least nothing I can 'say'. When the 'truth is revealed' one can no longer lie to themselves or others. I wonder where they will try to hide then???? Blame it on someone else to 'spread the blame' kind of like Eve did? You know: "Adam did it too...............". And I've always wondered: "Eve's eyes were already open when she somehow convinced Adam to eat. Wonder how she persuaded him knowing both: good AND 'evil'..........................????

Ok, lets say you're right. Women are all evil beings who deliberately try to undermine men, and who should be firmly kept in their place - well below men.

Got it.

So now that you're happy, we call all carry on with their lives, since nothing that is said in any of these debates make any difference to my life whatsoever. The only downside to this is that I am left with a little tinge of sadness for the women in your life, but I guess it is up to them to either submit, or remove themselves from your life.

bye

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

There is no male and female in the kingdom of God, so to campaign for women's rights within the context of the church, shows a disregard for the spirit, and a higher regard for the things of the flesh.

I suspect male and female is FUNDAMENTAL to the kingdom of God. Would not humanity be created in the way it was
FOR the kingdom of God?

Not a matter of "women's rights" but divine desire of God (and men of God) for women.
I suggest that is the very basis of the Holy Spirit of God, THEE SPIRIT OF LOVE, desire for Thee other.

Note it is that all are equal in Christ or equally in Christ, in Scripture.
LOVE'S SPIRIT

 

[ScottA]

I suspect male and female is FUNDAMENTAL to the kingdom of God. Would not humanity be created in the way it was
FOR the kingdom of God?

The purpose of gender in the world is for the unfolding revelation of Jesus Christ: History, is His story.

As the story goes, the women (humanity) was taken out of the man (Christ), the first Adam...Christ is the Beginning. He is also the End: the Last Adam, a life-giving spirit, in whom all who are His [bride] return to Him. This is the exodus of Him who was lifted up in the desert...and the mystery of marriage and of leadership in the church.

So, then, if we are to serve this purpose - His purpose (not ours)...then we will portray male as male, and female as female, never confusing the issue, never causing any to stumble, for the sake of those to whom we give our witness that Christ is the bridegroom and the head of all who will come in to Him.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Thanks, that is very clearly stated. It would be nice if we actually could talk about it - Lord knows we have a need to.

To be clear, his reference was to "homosexuality" AND "church leadership." Two very different issues. Which "it" are you here referring to?

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

The purpose of gender in the world is for the unfolding revelation of Jesus Christ: History, is His story.

As the story goes, the women (humanity) was taken out of the man (Christ), the first Adam...Christ is the Beginning. He is also the End: the Last Adam, a life-giving spirit, in whom all who are His [bride] return to Him. This is the exodus of Him who was lifted up in the desert.

So, then, if we are to serve this purpose - His purpose (not ours)...then we will portray male as male, and female as female, never confusing the issue, never causing any to stumble, for the sake of those to whom we give our witness that Christ is the bridegroom and the head of all who will come in to Him.

Life-giving Spirit indeed, and man and bride indeed! So agree that must NEVER confuse male and female.

But if Christ is the bridegroom, it is of the church his bride. Depending on what you mean by "come in to Him," I suppose, is it not the groom who comes in, rather than the bride? Especially if we are careful to not get genders mixed up.

Is not the kingdom, the Kingdom of God, the Christ and bride of Christ thing? So would not it be a totally male and female (image of God) reality?

 

[ScottA]

To be clear, his reference was to "homosexuality" AND "church leadership." Two very different issues. Which "it" are you here referring to?

Both really.

 

[ScottA]

But if Christ is the bridegroom, it is of the church his bride. Depending on what you mean by "come in to Him," I suppose, is it not the groom who comes in, rather than the bride? Especially if we are careful to not get genders mixed up.

You are right - that would of course be the most correct in the bride/bridegroom analogy. It is true that we do "come to" Christ in the process of returning to God. We also "come unto ourselves" (in the prodigal son example), showing the Oneness relationship we have with Christ. But for this analogy - thanks, you are most correct!

Is not the kingdom, the Kingdom of God, the Christ and bride of Christ thing? So would not it be a totally male and female (image of God) reality?

The gender/bride/groom analogy demonstrates the relationship we have with God in the kingdom, which, yes, includes male and female as One.

 

[tucker58]

It is perfectly clear that Adam was 'first formed' and then 'later' God created Eve 'from Adam'."

Genesis 2:7, 2:22
If Adam was created in God's image and Eve was created from Adam then the only difference between Adam and Eve would be a Y chromosome (YX male and XX female with Eve having two of Adam's X chromosomes and all of the autosomes would be the same.). There would be no other difference. So what you are saying Imagic is that if one does not carry a Y chromosome that they are not in God's and the Son's of God's image? Boy it sure was nice for our Lord and Savior to allow women into Heaven according to what seems(?) to be your version of things . Maybe women can't get into Heaven unless they are Christian because God the Father put Lord Jesus the Son in charge of all things and He forgives and loves everybody if they truly ask for forgiveness from their heart even if they might not be in God's image.