Are women inferior to men?

[Freedom Now]

While you are at it to defend Paul.......

Maybe you can also give an answer to this...


1 Timothy 2, 15
Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love

and holiness , with modesty.



According to Paul, can a woman be saved , if she does not bear children?

What about a woman that is barren or never marries, can they be saved without bearing children?

 

[Strong in Him]

I use to be an ignorant bigoted male as you are, so I can relate to your lack of understanding and value of women. You see the man I use to be treated people (in particular the female gender) with a lack of respect because of my ignorance but by the grace of God I have come to see that a woman is a man's equal and anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong and cannot walk in the spirit of Christ. I understand that you follow Paul as does today's church but sadly it is Paul which is keeping you from embracing the Christ which has come to set you free.

Who's that addressed to?

 

[2 know him]

Who's that addressed to?

It was addressed to the person who questioned my gender because of my posts in defense of women's equality to men.

 

[Strong in Him]

It was addressed to the person who questioned my gender because of my posts in defense of women's equality to men.

Ok.

 

[Strong in Him]

Tried to correct previous post

 

[Strong in Him]

.

 

[Johnnz]

We are 'all equal' in regards to 'Salvation'. But it is not 'only' the words of Paul that offer the 'order' God placed into His 'creation'. So you aren't merely denying Paul's words, you are denying 'all' that has been offered in the entire Bible that pertains to the 'order' God placed into 'HIS' creation. It was not left up to 'you or me' to determine that we don't LIKE it. We are merely expected to 'follow' the instructions we have been offered.

You are referring to a male order imposed onto Scripture, not God's order. The 'order' you refer to is most commonly exegeted from 1 Cor, referring back to the creation story. But seeing an 'order' from there is faulty. Paul referred to the second creation story in Genesis, not the first. The first account is about the ordering of creation. But with that creation of mankind no ordering is given - just 'male and female he created them".

The second story is about relationship, not order. It stresses the completeness of humanity through the creation of two complementary genders. In that story Adam was created first, a matter of narrative timing, and not as the dominant leader, but to reveal his incompleteness amongst creation, which was remedied by the 'one flesh' joining of the two genders. If Adam was to have some primacy over Eve it is in Genesis 1 where that must happen. But it didn't. Paul knew that, which is why he referred to the Genesis 2 story.

The remainder of the male authority teaching drawn from the same chapter in 1 Cor has its own poor exegesis of the actual text too.

John
NZ

 

[Radrook]

Not in my opinion, just like a child is not inferior to its parents, yet lower in 'rank'.

Very good example!

The Bible also tells us this:

Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. ...

1 Corinthians 12:

11All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, who apportions them to each one as He determines. 12The body is a unit, though it is comprised of many parts. And although its parts are many, they all form one body. So it is with Christ. 13For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free, and we were all given one Spirit to drink.…

 

[Radrook]

1) Well-known passages from the Apostle Paul seem to indicate that women are not to have authority over men or even speak in church.

2) God created the man first, then the woman.

3) Every author of Scripture (that we know of) is a man.

4) All of Christ's Apostles were men.

5) Christ himself is a man, and God is clearly described as masculine in Scripture.

Thoughts?

Response:

God created the man first, then the woman.

Because man was to play a leadership role.

Yet alone Adam, was designed to experience psychological distress due to loneliness and physical distress due to unfulfilled urgent physical needs. So despite his leadership function, Adam was only part of mankind, a part that would need await the second essential part, the female-in order to be officially considered mankind

Adam's incompleteness was evident in his physical design. Alone he could not procreate as he saw all other mammals doing..

Yet, although essential to each other both were God assigned certain social functions. One was to take the lead while the other would assist him. Yet this lead could never be taken alone or without the female's support since man would break down both physically and mentally alone. So both are mutually dependent and equally important to the and welfare of what is called mankind.

Every author of Scripture (that we know of) is a man. All of Christ's Apostles were men.

Christ himself is a man, and God is clearly described as masculine in Scripture.

Genesis 2:18
Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him."

Because God assigned the helper and leader roles to the two parts of mankind, he wants us to identify him with that leader role and not the helper role because He is the universal leader. This has nothing to do with inferior vs superior. Both roles are EQUALLY important. Both cannot exist or prosper without the other just as the heart is useless without blood vessels and just as the fingers are useless without muscles to move them. One function complements the other in order to accomplish a purpose.

Well-known passages from the Apostle Paul seem to indicate that women are not to have authority over men or even speak in church.

During the first century a serious problem arose among the churches involving the helper vs leadership roles assigned by the creator and Paul thought it very urgent that he respond in that forceful way.

Paul also forbade women to "teach," something he apparently allowed elsewhere (Romans 16; Philippians 4:2,3). Thus he presumably addressed the specific situation in this community. Because both Paul and his readers knew their situation and could take it for granted, the situation which elicited Paul’s response his intended meaning.
http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/200102/082_paul.cfm

Please keep well in mind that it was the same Apostol Paul who wrote the following:

Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. ...

1 Corinthians 12:

11All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, who apportions them to each one as He determines. 12The body is a unit, though it is comprised of many parts. And although its parts are many, they all form one body. So it is with Christ. 13For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free, and we were all given one Spirit to drink.…

Was Paul For or Against Women in Ministry?
PASSAGES WHERE PAUL AFFIRMED THE MINISTRY OF WOMEN
http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/200102/082_paul.cfm

 

[Anto9us]

Paul had the letter to the Romans carried there by PHOEBE, referred to as DEACONESS in KJV (I am aware that the Greek word could also be rendered
'Servant')
In any case, Paul thought enough of her to entrust her with the physical transmission of a MAJOR EPISTLE

 

[Anto9us]

Priscilla (of the couple "Aquilla and Priscilla')
At one point. 'explained more fully'
To Apollos some spiritual matters
Apollos was already a man "mighty in the Scriptures"
Priscilla is credited with TEACHING him further in the way of Christ, whether it was "teaching alongside her husband Aquilla or not"

Luke, who travelled with Paul and wrote more of the New Testament than anybody else (when you combine Luke and Acts)
Luke tells us in Acts that Phillip
"Had four virgin daughters who prophesied"

What a situation, a thread where Paul's very authenticity as an apostle is questioned...

Thank God Radrook quoted the Galatians passage about " no bond or free, Jew or Greek, male or female"

Teacher, deaconess, prophetesses- Clearly seen in New Testament

 

[Anto9us]

I would say that Paul is AMBIGUOUS about women's roles
I would say that CCT's very STATEMENT OF PURPOSE itself is ambiguous
About whether we should have discussions about non-trinitarian issues here or reserve them for 2 other forums

But at least we can talk about gender issues here- I would assume it is one of the unlisted topics that CCT "includes but is not limited to"

 

[Anto9us]

Proverbs chs. 8-9 shows us a female personification of WISDOM (Sophia)
Pre-existent and "there at creation"

Zechariah ch 5 shows us what sure looks like TWO LADY ANGELS. carrying a wicked woman off in a basket and flying it to Babylon

Song of Deborah in OT is one of the earliest poetic passages in the Bible

 

[Anto9us]

If we have a New Testament where we have to throw out Paul as being against Christ, we may as well throw out Luke as well, a faithful companion of Paul

New Testament's GETTING PRETTY SLIM!!

We've still got John, who wrote 1 gospel, 1 apocalypse, and 3 epistles...
Jesus entrusted His own mother to John's care on the Cross

 

[Freedom Now]

Well lets examine, not the question you posed in your words, but the actual words themselves.

If God said, "Only those that follow my commands will be saved". What if you are one that wants to be 'saved' but don't want to follow His commands? Am I suppose to listen when you start 'crying' about 'not liking' His commands? Am I to tell you, "Well you're right. I agree with you. You should have to follow His commands if you don't want to. He should just forgive you no matter what. If He really loved you, He would let you 'do' whatever you want and reward you 'anyway".

Sorry, I don't think that this is a very productive way to bring His children to the 'truth'.

The 'child bearing' part of Paul's words are only 'one condition'. Obviously if a woman is barren or never weds, this condition doesn't apply to themselves. The Bible doesn't leave us 'wondering'. It is offered in a manner that is simple enough for a 'child' to understand if they are capable of 'true understanding'.

But even a 'child' with understanding would recognize that every single line of the Bible is subjective. Not to personal interpretation, but to every other line of the Bible. So if you choose to read it once and then try and form what it is that you believe, you are 'bound' to follow some 'other' understanding than that offered in the Bible.

It is only through a thorough study of God's Word that we are able to rightly divide it and even then we are to rely upon the Holy Spirit for guidance rather than our 'own mentality'.

Everyone that reads in the Bible will NOT come to proper understanding. That is WHY God has gifted some with prophecy so that they can 'rightly divide' His word and explain it to others. Obvious you are not 'so gifted'.

Blessings,

MEC

I take it from reading your post, that you have the gift of prophecy (or believe that you do), to rightly divide the
word of God.

If this is so , how come you make an excemption clause to what Paul was saying in
1 Timothy 2, 15

Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and
holiness, with modesty.

Paul did not speak about that this text does not apply to the barren and the unwed, that is
what you add to it.

If this is rightly dividing the word according to you, then I should be able to apply your logic
and say in this text that Paul penned,...

I Corinthians 14
As in all churches of the saints, the woman should keep silence in the churches, For they
are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says.


If I use your logic (or what you consider rightly dividing the word) and apply the same
to this text as you did to 1 Timothy 2, 15 , then I have to conclude that
the barren and the unwed should be allowed to speak in church, as this text does not apply
to them...


We call that a slippery slope down to hell.

 

[Strong in Him]

P.S. for anyone who thinks this post and conversation is off topic you are highly mistaken: it is because of Paul's teachings that this topic is being discussed in the first place.

I know. But the question for this topic is surely, how literally do we take Paul's words and do they apply to us today? I felt that a discussion about Paul's heresy, whether the Holy Spirit should have allowed his epistles to be in the Bible and whether the Bible is the word of God might actually be off topic, because this is a discussion about whether we can trust him, and the Bible, at all, and not just "do we apply Paul's words to us today?"

Anyway, I've started another thread, which is on this forum and is called Paul the heretic??

 

[Strong in Him]

If we have a New Testament where we have to throw out Paul as being against Christ, we may as well throw out Luke as well, a faithful companion of Paul

He was Paul's doctor as well - and wrote his Gospel and Acts.
It is well known that Luke got at least some of the material for his Gospel from Mark's Gospel; maybe we need to throw that out as well?

Like you say, the NT is getting rather slim.

 

[2 know him]

I know. But the question for this topic is surely, how literally do we take Paul's words and do they apply to us today? I felt that a discussion about Paul's heresy, whether the Holy Spirit should have allowed his epistles to be in the Bible and whether the Bible is the word of God might actually be off topic, because this is a discussion about whether we can trust him, and the Bible, at all, and not just "do we apply Paul's words to us today?"

Anyway, I've started another thread, which is on this forum and is called Paul the heretic??

Sadly it is as I figured people would avoid the contradictions that Paul made against the teachings of Christ and try and make straw man arguments 2 divert the discussion.

I don't believe I have had anybody ever honestly answer the objections against Paul and his teachings that I point out which contradict Jesus's words.

 

[2 know him]

P S S S S:

In rebuke you in the name of Christ. You have falsely accused the entirety of the Body of Christ. I would offer that it would be impossible for you to 'know' God and make such statements. And if you don't 'know' God you couldn't possibly know His Son. So your words are nothing other than contention for whatever reason you have come to be contentious.

Blessings,

MEC

Instead of rebuking me in the name of Jesus you should be rebuking Paul for contradicting the lordship of Christ and his words.

 

[2 know him]

You have absolutely no 'basis' for denying the words offered by Paul...

MEC

Either you did not read my post or there is something wrong with your reasoning capabilities: I clearly showed how Paul contradicted Jesus and you refused to address the contradictions, which to me shows the dishonesty in you as a human being, that you care nothing about what is true, nothing about what is reasonable, and nothing about what is right.