• 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.

It was not Eve`s fault.

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

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

    carma Guest

    +0


    No, there is a third, people are forever taking that scripture out of context. People are forever ignoring the cultural beliefs of the time.

    No Paul had women teaching and leading in the Church, Paul was speaking to a particular Church when he wrote to Timothy, we have one side of the convo.

    We hav all of Paul's other letters.

    Paul listed a whole bunch of things that a man and women should or should not do, wanna get into those?

    Paul also advocated marriage, in the legal sense, Paul was clear that we were to follow the laws of the government.

    Also, while you are reading what Paul said about women being subject to their husbands, you might want to read about the entire body being subject to each other.
     
  2. Thunderchild

    Thunderchild Sheep in Wolf's clothing

    +1
    Non-Denom
    Paul also advocated marriage, in the legal sense, Paul was clear that we were to follow the laws of the government.

    We are to follow the laws of the government? Even when those laws are in conflict with God's law?

    But seeing as how it is that you still have a bee in your bonnet about marriage - which is to be held in honour, not willy nilly disrupted for the sake of seemliness - it is the ruling of the government of Australia, that if a couple claim to be husband and wife then that is what they are - ceremony or not. IF you demand that the ruling of the government is to be obeyed, you must in Australia, submit to that decision.


    Now - as to Paul's declarations about women. In his first epistle to Timothy, Paul leaves no doubt that he considers women to be in second place to men. In Ephesians Paul leaves no doubt that he considers wives to be subject to their husbands. Whatever stories might be made up for WHY these things were said do not change the facts about what was said. Rightly dividing the scriptures? Sure - it can't be shown that these passages have God's support (unless of course, you are able to prove that everything in the Bible is wholly without error.)

    I am not about to pretend these passages say other than what they do. You can show me passages in contradiction until the second coming - those other passages do not change what is written in these passages (they do show that what is written in these passages does not stand). The passages in contradiction have NO EFFECT ON THE CONTENTS OF THESE PARTICULAR PASSAGES - they merely obliterate any possibility that these particular passages can be correct.
     
  3. carma

    carma Guest

    +0
    Oh Please!!! Paul never thought women were inferior. You also skip the scripture that says we are all to be subject to each other.

    A quick study of the Greek used in all these passages where Paul spoke about women will tell you very quickly, that Paul was one of the first trying to bring in women's rights.

    I've asked you before and you have never answered, are you actually a Pastor or is that just a monikor and nothing more?
     
  4. Thunderchild

    Thunderchild Sheep in Wolf's clothing

    +1
    Non-Denom
    You have asked before, and I have answered before - yes, I am a pastor.

    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. 11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. 12 For as the woman [is] of the man, even so [is] the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

    There are other references.

    Now for a question of my own - Is Carma also Keylan?
     
  5. carma

    carma Guest

    +0
    No, I go by one name on message boards and that is Carma, which is my real name.
     
  6. Thunderchild

    Thunderchild Sheep in Wolf's clothing

    +1
    Non-Denom
    Of the fruit of any tree in the garden you may eat, except that of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. That statement does not allow for any interpretation other than that it was a fruit.
     
  7. Thunderchild

    Thunderchild Sheep in Wolf's clothing

    +1
    Non-Denom
    Of the fruit of any tree in the garden you may eat, except that of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
    When Eve looked at the tree and saw it was good for food.

    These two statements taken together leave no room for a metaphorical use of "eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil."
     
  8. mikitta

    mikitta Guest

    +0
    You know, Genesis 3:6 says that Eve turned to her husband who was with her and he ate. Adam was there, listening to the sepent's speil and never once spoke up against what was proposed or offered.

    I find it a little offensive when men with over blown egos, from the pulpit blame the whole fall on Eve and totally ignore Adam's culpability. Yes, Eve sinned and ate the of the forbidden fruit. But her husband allowed his lust of the forbidden to seal his tongue when he should have spoken against the serpent and admonished his wife.

    Now, as far as women being teachers or preachers - the suitability there depends on the woman and her message. Who are you, O man, to disparage what God has set in place? Remember Deborah? Hmmm, a judge over Isreal. Now, I bet that didn't take any teaching at all on her part. She just let her husband make all the descisions. She was just some man's puppet. Yeah, right. GOD HIMSELF appointed her.

    Quite honestly, that little verse in Timothy has been used as the sick excuse for more violence against women than the any thing else in history. I wonder how many women have been beaten to death by husbands maliciously quoting that as they perpetrated their violence?

    You know, maybe Paul did not allow women to teach in his congregations at this particular juncture, but we do not know about the other apostles. To take this one little verse and use it to strip women of their dignity and respect as human beings only shows that you, Pastor Thunderchild, or any other man who would do so, are weak in your masculinity and need to get a real life.

    I'll conclude by saying that being in a subordinate role in the marraige relationship does not translate to a subordinate role to all men within the structure of the Church. Nor does it mean that a woman is of lesser value to Christ and the Church than men are.

    But then, I am a woman and you probably have stoppered your ears by now, so I'll leave this as is.

    God Bless,
    mik
     
  9. Thunderchild

    Thunderchild Sheep in Wolf's clothing

    +1
    Non-Denom
    Now, as far as women being teachers or preachers - the suitability there depends on the woman and her message. Who are you, O man, to disparage what God has set in place? Remember Deborah?

    Was this perhaps addressed to me? I have been using Deborah as an example of Just How Paul Was Wrong for more than 20 years. If the criticism was addressed at me, a short side trip to pub43.ezboard.com/bwayrunners would be in order.

    Now to I find it a little offensive when men with over blown egos, from the pulpit blame the whole fall on Eve and totally ignore Adam's culpability

    Why would men say such a thing from the pulpit? Oh my, it is In - The - Bible.

    1Ti 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

    Hmmm ... there is a slight problem with that verse. It is not based on the Biblical account of the fall, but on Hellenistic (Greek) mythology.

     
  10. Thunderchild

    Thunderchild Sheep in Wolf's clothing

    +1
    Non-Denom
    Oh rats - I forgot to copy the thing across to my site, and I can't remember the location of the original.

    Assuming I CAN locate the original (hopefully it wasn't on Christian Battle Zone) I will copy it to the WayRunners board, and post the URL for the original here as well.

    Fact is (and I can see why people got the wrong idea) - I wholly endorse the FACT that God appoints people to roles of authority without regard to gender. What I have been saying until now in this forum - and go back to read those posts without your pre-conceptions - there are passages which state that women are in secondary roles to men. There is no pretending that those passages don't exist. There is no way to explain them away. (believe it). I have tried every possible theory that has been raised to try to explain them away - and every theory I have so far tested has been shown as nothing more than wishful thinking. Those passages do not allow for tinkering.

    So then - I simply state that one author is in conflict with every other Biblical author on this issue, and that these statements conflict with others that even he himself has made. These passages are in error.

    Copied from Sapere Aude board
    My response - posted on the second of February - Note the final paragraph.

    Re: Women in the church - Robin Pastor Thunderchild
    2 Corinthians 5:17: "Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation..." (NIV). Again "anyone" appears to mean both men and women.
    "Therefore if anyone (tis - anyone) is in Christ, he (added in translation to make it understandable) is a new creation." Definitely is as you claim Robin. And the Old Testament prophecy "I will pour out my spirit on your sons and your daughters ..." wouldn't be met if only males were recipients of grace anyway.

    Phillipians 4:2 and Philemon 1:2 are extremely doubtful in rendering - I would not attempt to use them in any argument against Paul's relegating women to a secondary role in some of his writings. Simply put - they are not needed, and they could make it look as though you are clutching at straws.

    As for 1 Peter 4:10-11 - If the relegation of women to secondary position was true, no woman would be given the gift to be an effective pastor anyway.

    Happily, solid scriptural evidence shows that women are appointed by God - without ANY possibility of contradiction - to high rank within the church. (Your reference to the daughters of Simon from Acts). As prophetesses, they ranked second in human authority within the church. While this does not show women as being highest rank (apostle), it is clear that a teacher or healer, being male, would be on thin ice either in challenging a prophet (being female) or ignoring her directives.






     
  11. mikitta

    mikitta Guest

    +0
    Thank you for clearing that up, Pastor Thunderchild. It IS a sensitive subject for some obvious reasons. I have heard a few to many men denegrate women - pastors denegriting their female parishoners - with this argument.

    Personally, I have no problem with men saying that Eve was decieved, just so long as they add in that Adam was with her and obviously was in complete agreement with the serpent and said not one word in defense of God's word. Sin is still sin but it is reasonable to draw the conclusion that while Eve sinned because she was decieved, Adam sinned even though he was not.

    God Bless,
    mik
     
  12. Thunderchild

    Thunderchild Sheep in Wolf's clothing

    +1
    Non-Denom
    It is also written that no-one sins until that one has been deceived by his own desire - so Adam doesn't even get away with deliberately sinning where Eve sinned as a result of being deceived.
     
  13. mikitta

    mikitta Guest

    +0
    Perhaps it would be fair to say that lust for the forbidden fruit had already taken root within his heart when oportunity presented itself?

    God Bless,
    mik
     
  14. Thunderchild

    Thunderchild Sheep in Wolf's clothing

    +1
    Non-Denom
    **chortle**

    I never looked at it that way, but the concept is valid.
     
  15. Rev Moon jr

    Rev Moon jr Guest

    +0
    <msg removed by board moderator>
     
  16. carma

    carma Guest

    +0
    Rev Moon,

    Scripture is very clear what the fall of man was and it was not sexual in nature.

    What you continually post, without anything to back it up and the only thing that is 100% is God's Word; is nothing more than a lie that satan would have people believe.

    We know exactly what happened at the fall of man, and those scriptures have been posted over and over.
     
  17. ZoneChaos

    ZoneChaos Senior Veteran

    +21
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    <Moderateor Hat On>

    I deleted Rev. Moons reply to this thread because i felt is was in-appropriate for this forum.

    <Moderator Hat Off>
     
  18. Josephus

    Josephus <b>Co-Founder Christian Forums</b> Supporter

    +230
    Messianic
    bump - what do you think?
     
  19. LouisBooth

    LouisBooth Well-Known Member

    +59
    Christian
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    umm....about what? :lol: that we all are to blame for the fall? Do you sin? If you have then you chose the same as Adam and Eve.
     
  20. Peeker

    Peeker Guest

    +0

    Did you ever notice that the word applied to Adam and Eve, before they ate of the fruit, translated as "naked," Gen: 2:24, [from the Hebrew root A-R-M (ayin, resh, mem sophit)] is the same word that in the very next verse, Gen 3:1, is also applied to the snake in the garden of Eden, but is translated as "subtle" meaning "cunning" with a connotation of evil? So, it can 'read' that Adam and Eve were naked and not ashamed and the snake was the most naked, or it can 'read' that A&E were subtle and not ashamed and the snake was the moste subtle of the beasts. (Contrast the word "naked" with "clothed in righteousness" for a moment...)

    The only reason that the ancients didn't translate these words the same is because that implies that the snake and A&E were the same morally but A&E were not ashamed about it (!) which of course goes against all orthadox interpretations about the origin of sin.

    Because Christian scholars also rejected the supposition that the spirits made their choice to sin in the spirit world before the creation of the physical world, they too followed the Hebrew tradition...theology leading scriptural understanding.

    http://pub22.ezboard.com/bpreconceptionexistance

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