• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.
  7. There has been an addition to the announcement regarding unacceptable nick names. The phrase "Let's go Brandon" actually stands for a profanity and will be seen as a violation of the profanity rule in the future.

It was not Eve`s fault.

Discussion in 'Non-denominational' started by micreusa, Oct 16, 2000.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. micreusa

    micreusa Guest

    +0
    We have a tendency to blame the fall of man on Eve, when technically it was not her fault.
    Adam was made in God`s image, and he walked with God, and had a spiritual connection.
    God made woman to help Adam (woman means "of man")and it was Adam`s responsibility to teach her in the things of God.
    When she was deceived by the serpent, man was not yet condemned.
    It was when Adam took the apple from her and ate, rather than chastising her for her sin. Had he said no, she would have been forgiven and things would have been different.
    But Adam chose his woman over his God, something of man, and that is why the fall came about.
    It is for this reason God cannot bless a relationship that is based on fornication.If Gods blessing of matrimony is not on your relationship, you are suffering from the Adam syndrome.
    I hope this helps someone.

    In Christ,Michael
     
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. DavidforHim

    DavidforHim Guest

    +0
    Are you not doing the same thing they did by not saying it was or was not her fault. Lets just face it, we are all to blame.
     
  3. AngelAmidala

    AngelAmidala Legend

    +617
    Methodist
    Single
    Good point.

    The first time I read it, I thought that it was nice to hear someone NOT totally blaming Eve. Every time I've read the Garden of Eden story, it just seems that people like to comment on how it was THE WOMAN'S fault.

    But, thinking more about it, it was really both their faults.
    They didn't think of God first. God told them not to eat the fruit. Eve forgot that, and listened to the snake. Adam forgot that, and listened to Eve. They both had the opportunity to say "NO!"

    I guess that's why it's so important to remember that God comes first, even before your family. *shrugs*
     
  4. micreusa

    micreusa Guest

    +0
    I stand corrected, but it does not change the fact that the end responsibility fell on Adam. Had he said no, things would not have turned out the way they did.
     
  5. DavidforHim

    DavidforHim Guest

    +0
    Adam as a type of Christ became sin cause he loved Eve so much. He didnt have to eat the apple. But because he choose to, it shows his unlimited love for his wife. As Christ choose to die for us all, and how all men should love their wives.
     
  6. Haadam

    Haadam Guest

    +0
    First Off. It was not any Apple they Ate! Second it was the Fruit of the Serpents Loins, They took into themselves. A Conception took place, (Gen. 3:15-16)!
    THe Inward Beings Of Adam and Eve,(Their Souls) were Incarnated Angels numbering with God's Holy Two thirds Angels. God took a piece of flesh (Adams womb) and a Bone (the rib) and made the Woman (Womb-Man). The incarnated Angel that was Living in the seperated part of Adam's Literal Flesh and Bone, who was Called Eve. Sinned because Adams FLESH was weak and failed them Both. When Eve Concieved with Child from the Serpent, (who's name was called CAIN) Adam also was seen as Biting the "SO called Apple", because it was His own flesh Womb which Eve was in Control over, that Ate,(took into one's self) the forbidden Fruit,( The serpents "SEED")! So ADAM's Flesh was WEAK, Both Angels that had been Incarnated into the Earth CAlled Flesh, Suffered because of the Flesh that was found to be weak. Jesus Later at Calvary Redeemed the Angels, by living a Perfect Life in the Flesh Body. THe first Adam became LAST and the Last ADAM became FIRST. THat Last ADAM was JESUS THE CHRIST.
    LOve in Jesus Name Haadam
     
  7. DavidforHim

    DavidforHim Guest

    +0
    I dont know where you got that but you are going to have to back that theory up with some serious material before anyone will be buying into it. I take my Bible literaly, as did all the people in the Bible It was a fruit from a real tree, Adam and Eve are human like you and i, we cannot prove what happend either way.
     
  8. NazGirl

    NazGirl Member

    151
    +0
    Adam had a womb????? ;)
     
  9. Haadam

    Haadam Guest

    +0
    David,
    Is Jesus the Tree of Life? Does Jesus Speak in Symbolism? Lets See! John 15:5 SAy's I am the Vine ye are the Branches,he that abideth in me and I in Him, the Same bringeth forth much Fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.
    Now Jesus was a Man, was'nt he! He twern't no TREE was HE! WEll why does He say he is? Jesus is the TREE of LIFE! WITHOUT him you have no LIFE. JESUS is ETERNAL! If you aint been Grafted into His Root Stock, Then You Gonna Die! So you can take your Bible Literal, I do also! But I wont say Jesus, is no tree of life. Cause he is. He said he is! LOve in Christ Name Haadam
     
  10. DavidforHim

    DavidforHim Guest

    +0
    Thats great but why would a Ceribim need to be guarding no Tree of Life. There was a tree of good and evil and life, there still is. Somewhere.
     
  11. micreusa

    micreusa Guest

    +0
    Let me also add that God breathed the breath of life into Adam, a man made in His own image.
    It does not say that God placed the spirit of an Angel in him.
    They were human.They were told not to eat from the TREE of knowledge. Maybe it was not an apple, but it was something literal that they were not supposed to touch.
    If Adam and Eve were angelic, where does humanity come in?
    No my friend, I must disagree this time and agree with David. Genesis for the most part is to be taken literally.
     
  12. Rev Moon jr

    Rev Moon jr Guest

    +0
    Eve was given a responsibility and she failed. So, who is responsible? Eve!
     
  13. carma

    carma Guest

    +0
    Ya, you are right Rev Moon, jr. I seem to remember in Genesis where Eve held a gun to Adam's head and made him eat the fruit also. :rolleyes:

    Where was Adam, the one that was supposed to be the Spiritual leader and protector, when satan came after Eve????
     
  14. Thunderchild

    Thunderchild Sheep in Wolf's clothing

    +1
    Non-Denom

    ROFL. Paul lays the blame squarely at the woman's feet, not at the man's.

    "And I do not allow a woman to teach, neither to exercise authority over a man: for Adam was formed first, then Eve, and Adam was not deceived, but the woman - being deceived - fell into transgression."

    (though it is beyond my comprehension why the woman should be not allowed to teach, because she was deceived, but the man is allowed to teach, despite wilfully sinning.)

    As to the "fruit" being an apple - that is impossible...nonetheless, it is a orders of magnitude more likely than that it was the "fruit of the serpent's loins." No greater proof is needed than this - that it was not the tree of evil, but the tree of knowledge of good and evil. But just in case more does need to be provided, the clear correlation that it was literally eaten is in the declaration "Of any plant in the garden you may eat, except the fruit of the tree ..."

    The point about the Christ being the tree of life does need to be addressed, however. For it is written that the believer does eat of the flesh of the Christ. (and no - the precept of transsubstantiation is rejected)

    Please note that the cherubim were stationed to prevent access to the garden of Eden, not just the tree of life.
     
  15. carma

    carma Guest

    +0
    Pastor Thunderchild,

    You might want to read all of Paul's work, rightly divide the Word and study the Greek a bit.

    Paul also said, "In Christ there is no man or woman, Jew or Gentile, free or slave.
     
  16. Thunderchild

    Thunderchild Sheep in Wolf's clothing

    +1
    Non-Denom
    THAT topic was not at issue under the present circumstances Carma.



    And the implications you make in your post are offensive.
     
  17. carma

    carma Guest

    +0
    Look, I responded to your post, which is what people do, respond to post.

    I didn't make any implications in my post to you, I said it outright, you need to read all the words of Paul and rightly divide the word.

    You say "women" can't teach, that's not what Paul said. It's funny how someone and it is usually a man, will remember something Paul said or something they think he said, about women, but don't remember what he said about men.

    Most people are not understanding what Paul taught, they don't understand the culture at that time or what was going on then. Christ did not teach these things and Paul would not contradict Christ.

    That's why we must rightly divide the Word.
     
  18. Thunderchild

    Thunderchild Sheep in Wolf's clothing

    +1
    Non-Denom
    Odd that - the "I do not suffer women to teach, nor to hold authority over a man" is a direct quote from the Bible. I don't say it - Paul did.

    The first clause is true - the Christ did not teach these things. On the other hand, there is no direct statement quoting Jesus to show that he taught the opposite. If Jesus had taught that women were in position equal to men, Paul would have contradicted him.

    I have repeatedly stated that Paul's teachings about women are in conflict with the balance of the Bible's teachings, Carma, as you well know. But I have no intention of pretending that what he wrote is something other than what he did. I'll leave that game to people who have an agenda which requires them to disavow the facts.
     
  19. carma

    carma Guest

    +0
    You actually think I don't know about that verse in Timothy?

    Paul said "I do not allow", and he only said that to Timothy, but yet Paul also had some women in other churches, that he called the same Greek word that he called himself and Timothy.

    Now why do you suppose that Paul said that to Timothy?

    Paul was the one that brought women into the Church, they were not allowed in the Church or to be educated or even to talk to other men, except their husband and brothers.

    A couple of things that Paul knew, these women could not teach, before they were taught and you can't go in a like a bull in a china shop, when changing cultural customs that had been in place for thousands of years.

    Oh, something else Paul said:



    Hmmm....either Paul suffered from multiple personality disorder or someone needs to rightly divide the Word and study the Greek.
     
  20. Thunderchild

    Thunderchild Sheep in Wolf's clothing

    +1
    Non-Denom
    Paul's "In Christ there is neither male nor female" is indeed Paul's statement - so is Paul's "I do not suffer a woman to teach."

    Now there are two other possibilities (aside from your float of the multiple personality disorder idea) that need mention -
    1/ Did Paul reverse a viewpoint that he had held earlier? (or perhaps he knew everything faultlessly from the first without the need of any teaching)
    2/ Did Paul understand the implications of what he was saying with the declaration that "in Christ there is neither male nor female."? (more than once, people have spoken from God without understanding what they have been saying.)

    Nonetheless - epitrepo is translated as "I allow" but the word means allow/permit. The verse then, is best translated as "a woman is not permitted to teach."


    So what do we make of a statement made by only one author which is in conflict with the balance of the Bible? And indeed, a statement which is in conflict with that same author's other instructions?

    1Cr 11:3 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.
    (OK - so this only says that the woman is subordinate to her husband, but that STILL puts the woman, by reason of her gender, in a subordinate role to the man)
    So what do we make of a statement made by only one author which is in conflict with the balance of the Bible?

    Now there remains just ONE REMOTE (very remote) possibility. And it is ONLY a possibility. The question can be asked: Was Paul, in his letter to Timothy, referring to a specific woman? The question can be asked - there is no way to say "Paul was referring to one specific woman", but the question can be asked.



     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...