Women ruling, a bad thing?

[Jerushabelle]

Er, the "sister" you refer to is a man!

Unless you were being ironic.

ooops!!! My bad!
Nope, wasn't being ironic. Was being exhausted; functioning on four hours of sleep. But I still agree with everything he said. Sorry Meepy but it would have been great coming from a woman! I salute you Brother...and humbly submit to your wisdom through Scripture...LOL
Continue wielding!...er, please!


Think I'll go lay down now!! ROFLOL

 

[Strong in Him]

You will find no place in Scripture where a woman is a priest in the synagogue leading men in worship. You will find no place in Scripture that authorizes a woman to do so.

But he is clearly doing so today.

I know how the next bit of the argument goes - that all women who preach and are ordained are deceived, ambitious feminists and disobeying Scripture. Really? ALL of them - and the men who teach, train, affirm their call and licence/ordain them? And it's impossible for God to discipline, rebuke and remove them?

No, but it's easier, apparently, to believe this, than to believe that a particular reading of Scripture may be wrong.

 

[Jerushabelle]

God doesn't change, Sister. He's the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. I don't doubt God called you but Scripture doesn't lie. He has set forth His heirarchy of submission and His governmental ordinance for His church. He has not changed those things and the reason why is very simple; His House divided against itself could not stand.

He has set parameters and women leading men in worship before Him is offensive to Him. The establishment of women pastors for the purpose of leading more than women and children is one of the key factors in the destruction of churches. All but the righteous and obedient are imploding or haven't you noticed? It's not impossible for God to do anything. Moreover, He has foretold what will happen to those who are disobedient. Your statement that since God hasn't done anything about women pastors yet so it must be okay, is surprising. He does things in His time, not ours.

Provide me with Scripture wherein a woman is a priest leading men in worship before God in church/synagogue. Provide me Scripture that authorizes a woman to do so.

Do you think it has been easy for me to accept this? NO but I love God more than anything and I KNOW He called me. I just operate within the parameters He has set for me. Like you, I am a warrior for God. I make mistakes...clearly, but I stand on His word in obedience as best I can.

I submit this to you respectfully and in Christian love.

 

[Tamara224]

You will find no place in Scripture where a woman is a priest in the synagogue leading men in worship. You will find no place in Scripture that authorizes a woman to do so.

Sure you will. It's in the same place that authorizes men to be priests in synagogues leading in worship.


Only I can't find that spot. Where is it again?

 

[Tamara224]

He has set parameters and women leading men in worship before Him is offensive to Him.

You're making a very serious charge against your sisters and brothers in Christ who disagree with your interpretation of Scripture.

I would challenge you, therefore, to provide the Scripture references on which you base you claim.

Where, exactly, are those "parameters" set forth in Scripture?

The establishment of women pastors for the purpose of leading more than women and children is one of the key factors in the destruction of churches. All but the righteous and obedient are imploding or haven't you noticed?

No, to be perfectly honest, I've not noticed that at all. Furthermore, I don't think it can be proven.

On the contrary, I believe the weight of the historical evidence shows that when women are allowed the freedom to operate in the Gifts and Callings with which God has gifted and called them, the fruit of their ministry is undeniably good.

Provide me with Scripture wherein a woman is a priest leading men in worship before God in church/synagogue. Provide me Scripture that authorizes a woman to do so.

First, I think the way you've worded this is intentionally tailored narrowly so that it is impossible to answer. And so I would challenge you to provide Scripture wherein a man is a priest leading men in worship before God in church/synagogue.

In the meantime...

In 1 Corinthians, Paul discusses women "praying and prophesying" with their heads covered or uncovered. (1 Cor 11). Later in the same letter, Paul talks about the order and style of worship in church services. He also discussed the Body of Christ and how, and by whom, the members of the Body are assembled.

4 There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit distributes them. 5 There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. 6 There are different kinds of working, but in all of them and in everyone it is the same God at work.
7 Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. 8 To one there is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom, to another a message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, 10 to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues. 11 All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he distributes them to each one, just as he determines.



27 Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. 28 And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30 Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? 31 Now eagerly desire the greater gifts.
(1 Cor 12)

​

We learn several things from this pertinent to this topic: 1) prophecy and prophesying were gifts given by the Holy Spirit; and 2) used in worship before the entire congregation; 3) listed higher on the list than "teaching" and 4) women were doing it.

Nowhere in Paul's pretty extensive discussion of the use of spiritual gifts or the placement of members in the Body of Christ does he ever say or imply that the gifts and callings would be distributed based on gender/sex.


One from the Old Testament (before "synagogues" or "priests" existed):

19 When Pharaoh’s horses, chariots and horsemen went into the sea, the LORD brought the waters of the sea back over them, but the Israelites walked through the sea on dry ground. 20 Then Miriam the prophet, Aaron’s sister, took a timbrel in her hand, and all the women followed her, with timbrels and dancing. 21 Miriam sang to them: “Sing to the LORD,
for he is highly exalted.
Both horse and driver
he has hurled into the sea.”
​

Exodus 15

 

[Johnnz]

God doesn't change, Sister. He's the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. I don't doubt God called you but Scripture doesn't lie. He has set forth His hierarchy of submission and His governmental ordinance for His church. He has not changed those things and the reason why is very simple; His House divided against itself could not stand.

He has set parameters and women leading men in worship before Him is offensive to Him. The establishment of women pastors for the purpose of leading more than women and children is one of the key factors in the destruction of churches. All but the righteous and obedient are imploding or haven't you noticed? It's not impossible for God to do anything. Moreover, He has foretold what will happen to those who are disobedient. Your statement that since God hasn't done anything about women pastors yet so it must be okay, is surprising. He does things in His time, not ours.

Provide me with Scripture wherein a woman is a priest leading men in worship before God in church/synagogue. Provide me Scripture that authorizes a woman to do so.

Do you think it has been easy for me to accept this? NO but I love God more than anything and I KNOW He called me. I just operate within the parameters He has set for me. Like you, I am a warrior for God. I make mistakes...clearly, but I stand on His word in obedience as best I can.

I submit this to you respectfully and in Christian love.

a) There is no hierarchy of submission. The scriptures you will quote do not support any hierarchy within the church, where the only head is Christ and any ministry derives any authority not by virtue of a title or position but on a recognised function that expresses Jesus well.

b) Church imploding. Well I am aware of many devout, earnest Christians who have highlighted major flaws in the fundamentalist type teachings you accept from their own sound exegesis of the scriptures you love too on issues far broader than women in leadership. Underlying much of their concern is a recognition that the exegetical quality of fundamentalist teaching is severely lacking in many areas. Your conclusion is a non sequiter.

c) Women priests in the OT. None. the Jewish people had a somewhat low view of women, many teaching that women should never be taught Torah. Jesus upended that view by incorporating women into his life and ministry against all prevailing cultural norms. The Mary Martha issues arose from this point. Mary sitting at Jesus feet was a recognised role of a disciple. Jesus included her in his teaching. Mary was not objecting to a shortage of kitchen help as much as she was saying to Marsha - "Stop trying to take on a role that is outside your status as a woman".

Also, in the OT priest and king were separate roles. Priests did not rule, they simply provided for the practice of Torah. Kings were not priests. To see a church leader as a 'priest' and therefore with authority over a congregation cannot be justified from scripture, especially from the NT. 'Authority over' is not a NT concept (See Mark 9:34-37;Luke 22:25-27). All such structures belong to the realm of 'the flesh'.

John
NZ

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Women ruling, a bad thing?

Only if ya give 'em a sword

Matthew 14:7 Therefore he promised with an oath to give her whatever she might ask.
8 So she, having been prompted by her mother, said, "Give me John the Baptist's head here on a platter."
9 And the king was sorry; nevertheless, because of the oaths and because of those who sat with him, he commanded [it] to be given to [her.]
10 So he sent and had John beheaded in prison.

YouTube - Conan the Barbarian Beheading

 

[Meepy]

Why don't we compare the damage done by "women's preaching" to the damage done by "men's preaching."

Want to make a wager on it? I'll bet you $100 that if we compile a list of false teachers that have done damage through their preaching... the number of men on that list will far exceed the number of women.

That's why this argument is an epic fail. It's completely irrational. Let me explain:

Your argument goes thus:
1) women are naturally incapable of teaching;
2) men are naturally capable of teaching;
Therefore, men should always teach and women should never teach.

In order for your argument to stand, your premises must be true (1 and 2, above).

So, you would have to prove that
1) historically, all women who ever taught anything were always wrong; and
2) historically, all men who ever taught anything were always right.

The clear and convincing weight of the evidence tells how absurd that is.

The evidence tells us that human beings are prone to error, regardless of gender, race, social status, education, intelligence or any other factor. The TRUTH is that no human being can be trusted completely to have, much less to lead others into, all truth.


What's ironic about this is that Paul wrote his letter to Timothy to urge him to " stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain people not to teach false doctrines any longer or to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies." (1 Tim 1:3-4)

Historical evidence tells us that the prominent cults and heresies in Ephesus at the time were a blending of gnosticism and goddess worship. They taught that women were more divine than men and had special knowledge (gnosis) which only they could impart to men. They also taught that Eve was created before Adam and, with the aid of the serpent, imparted upon him special knowledge.

It is most likely that Paul was addressing this particular false teaching when he said "I am not permitting a woman to teach or authentien a man." Paul would not permit the women to teach the gnostic heresy and perversion of Scripture. Paul knew that "in Christ Jesus [we] are all children of God...there is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female." (Gal 3) It was utterly false to teach that women are more divine than men or have a better 'connection' to spiritual things. Paul couldn't allow such teaching. Instead, Paul said that these women in Ephesus should "learn quietly and submissively."

It is ironic that Paul's attempt to correct the notion that one sex is better than the other should be turned around and used for exactly that purpose.

read some church history. Gnosticism didn't spring up till after 100 A.D. by a man named valentanius. And mostly during 200 A.D. St. Paul was already dead before gnosticism sprout up. So how could he have written about it considering it didn't exist till around 50-60 years after? Recheck your theology

And it has nothing to do with one sex being better than the other. It has to do with authority and the issue of creation and the fall as Paul so clearly states. He didn't say woman couldn't teach man because of gnosticism, all you have to do is just read the verses after it to find out why. For Adam was first created, and it was Eve who was the one deceived. Thus since Eve was the first one deceived she showed a pliancy in character and failed at 'leading her husband', which just led him into sin. Thus God tells woman "Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you". Eve failed at trying to lead her husband in the garden, and thus Adam was put in authority over her

 

[Isolation]

Women ruling, a bad thing?

Only if ya give 'em a sword

Matthew 14:7 Therefore he promised with an oath to give her whatever she might ask.
8 So she, having been prompted by her mother, said, "Give me John the Baptist's head here on a platter."
9 And the king was sorry; nevertheless, because of the oaths and because of those who sat with him, he commanded [it] to be given to [her.]
10 So he sent and had John beheaded in prison.

YouTube - Conan the Barbarian Beheading

I have never seen that movie.. Actually have not seen most stuff. I don't watch television lol

 

[Meepy]

This is what you're not getting. Women do not take it upon themselves to preach, just as I would hope men don't. It is a call from God.
If anyone were to stand up and preach in their own strength and with their own wisdom, don't you think that God would be able to stop, rebuke or correct them? Or might the Minister and congregation recognise that the words were their own and they had no authority to preach?

There were many opportunities in my training for both clergy and congregations to say, "we don't believe that Gill is called to do this", or more likely, "Gill is rubbish, get rid of her." No one ever did, and the circuit were happy that I should be licensed as a preacher. In other words, it was not my doing, and decision, alone. It was not that I criticised the minister, said "I can do a better job than you" and took over - I was called by God and others confirmed it.

Not at all the same situation as with Korah.

By the way, the catholic priest invited me to preach.

yes it is the same as Korah.

“You have gone too far! The whole community is holy, every one of them, and the LORD is with them. Why then do you set yourselves above the LORD’s assembly?” - Numbers 16

That sounds quite familiar to your postsYet Moses rebukes this proposition

Isn’t it enough for you that the God of Israel has separated you from the rest of the Israelite community and brought you near himself to do the work at the LORD’s tabernacle and to stand before the community and minister to them? 10 He has brought you and all your fellow Levites near himself, but now you are trying to get the priesthood too?. 11 It is against the LORD that you and all your followers have banded together. Who is Aaron that you should grumble against him? - Numbers 16, 9:11


The term priesthood of believers doesn't mean everyone is a priest. As the term comes up in exodus and yet the Jews, except Korah, never stated that everyone could be a priest unto themselves.

Secondly women preaching the pulpit is not a call from God because it is contrary to scripture(1 Tim 2:12) and the general abrahamic tradition. Your the one treading on shaky waters because you are doing something against natural and divine law. What you think is a call is probably pride, since you think you can try to teach to others what you think is the gospel.

St. John Chrysostom, in On the Priesthood 2. 2 points out that Jesus said

"Feed my sheep" only to Peter. "Many of the subjects could easily do the things I have mentioned, not only men, but also women. But when there is question of the headship of the church... let the entire female sex retire." And in 3. 9 St. John wrote: "Divine law has excluded women from the sanctuary, but they try to thrust themselves into it."

Divine law prevents a woman from preaching the pulpit and administering communion. A woman administering communion is absolute blasphemy and contempt for Christ's body.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Strong in Him Er, the "sister" you refer to is a man!

Unless you were being ironic.

ooops!!! My bad!
Nope, wasn't being ironic. Was being exhausted; functioning on four hours of sleep. But I still agree with everything he said. Sorry Meepy but it would have been great coming from a woman! I salute you Brother...and humbly submit to your wisdom through Scripture...LOL
Continue wielding!...er, please!

Think I'll go lay down now!! ROFLOL

I wonder if CF has an icon for "genderless"

Young) Galatians 3:28 there is not here Jew or Greek, there is not here servant nor freeman, there is not here male and female,
for all ye are one in Christ Jesus;

 

[Johnnz]

"Divine law prevents a woman from preaching the pulpit and administering communion. A woman administering communion is absolute blasphemy and contempt for Christ's body."

That is exalting a tradition above Scripture. And when that tradition contradicts scripture I would be concerned.

John
NZ

 

[Tamara224]

read some church history. Gnosticism didn't spring up till after 100 A.D. by a man named valentanius.

Okay. I'm going to stop reading right there. I know, and I think most other people know, that this just isn't true. There are gnostic teachings predating 100.

And it has nothing to do with one sex being better than the other.

Oh go on. At least be honest about it like Calvin and Augustine and all the other men-folk who said women aren't fit to lead. At least they had the courage of their convictions to come out and say they thought women were below men, less than men.

When you say things like women are naturally incapable of doing a basic human activity that men are capable of doing, you're putting men above women.

It has to do with authority and the issue of creation and the fall as Paul so clearly states. He didn't say woman couldn't teach man because of gnosticism, all you have to do is just read the verses after it to find out why. For Adam was first created, and it was Eve who was the one deceived. Thus since Eve was the first one deceived she showed a pliancy in character and failed at 'leading her husband', which just led him into sin.

Paul was correcting a specific false teaching. As I already said - the prominent heresy in Ephesus involved a belief that Eve was created first and she had a special divine gnosis which she gave to Adam.

Paul is correcting that by giving a correct account of the story.

Thus God tells woman "Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you". Eve failed at trying to lead her husband in the garden, and thus Adam was put in authority over her

Now you're reading into the Genesis story, too.

Adam was not put in authority over Eve. God was telling Eve that the consequences of her sin would be that her husband would be domineering.

Which just proves that the insistence on male rulership is actually an attempt to force the negative consequences of sin on women. Not to mention male attempt to pass the buck - just like Adam did.

 

[Isolation]

I rather would have a male lead
A female lead is not something I would care for
At least in my faith

 

[Meepy]

Adam was not put in authority over Eve. God was telling Eve that the consequences of her sin would be that her husband would be domineering.

ROFL! domineering

Did you get that from some feminist bible commentary?

When I read comments like this it is easy to see why God prohibited women from preaching the pulpit. Otherwise you get ardent heretics like Joan Chittister.


and you talk to me about reading into scripture? You must ignore a ton of scripture when Paul states that eve was the one deceived and not Adam and it was for this reason woman can not teach the pulpit. Didn't I already say that gnosticism didn't come into being till after Paul died? Did paul say, "a woman cannot teach because of a gnostic religion" that was happening at the time? No, he stated, a woman cannot teach because Adam was first created and then Eve, and it was Eve who was the first one deceived.

even the basic commentaries know that the reason Adam was put in authority over Eve was because she was second culpable after Satan.


Here is a commentary from the WESLEY Methodist notes:

We have here the sentence past upon the woman; she is condemned to a state of sorrow and a state of subjection: proper punishments of a sin in which she had gratified her pleasure and her pride. She is here put into a state of sorrow; one particular of which only is instanced in, that in bringing forth children, but it includes all those impressions of grief and fear which the mind of that tender sex is most apt to receive, and all the common calamities which they are liable to. It is God that multiplies our sorrows, I will do it: God, as a righteous Judge, doth it, which ought to silence us under all our sorrows; as many as they are we have deserved them all, and more: nay, God as a tender Father doth it for our necessary correction, that we may be humbled for sin, and weaned from it. She is here put into a state of subjection: the whole sex, which by creation was equal with man, is for sin made inferior.

The reason given is because Adam was first formed, then Eve out of him, to denote her subordination to him and dependence upon him; and that she was made for him, to be a help-meet for him. And as she was last in the creation, which is one reason for her subjection, so she was first in the transgression, and that is another reason. Adam was not deceived, that is, not first; the serpent did not immediately set upon him, but the woman was first in the transgression (2 Co. 11:3), and it was part of the sentence, Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee, Gen. 3:16


She is here put into a state of subjection. The whole sex, which by creation was equal with man, is, for sin, made inferior, and forbidden to usurp authority, 1 Tim. 2:11, 12. The wife particularly is hereby put under the dominion of her husband, and is not sui juris-at her own disposal, of which see an instance in that law, Num. 30:6-8, where the husband is empowered, if he please, to disannul the vows made by the wife. This sentence amounts only to that command, Wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; but the entrance of sin has made that duty a punishment, which otherwise it would not have been. If man had not sinned, he would always have ruled with wisdom and love; and, if the woman had not sinned, she would always have obeyed with humility and meekness; and then the dominion would have been no grievance: but our own sin and folly make our yoke heavy. If Eve had not eaten forbidden fruit herself, and tempted her husband to eat it, she would never have complained of her subjection; therefore it ought never to be complained of, though harsh; but sin must be complained of, that made it so. Those wives who not only despise and disobey their husbands, but domineer over them, do not consider that they not only violate a divine law, but thwart a divine sentence



Here is again Wesleys notes on 1 Tim 2:12:

2:12 To usurp authority over the man - By public teaching.

According to St. Paul, women are not allowed to be public teachers in the church; for teaching is an office of authority. But good women may and ought to teach their children at home the principles of true religion. Also, women must not think themselves excused from learning what is necessary to salvation, though they must not usurp authority. As woman was last in the creation, which is one reason for her subjection, so she was first in the transgression. But there is a word of comfort; that those who continue in sobriety, shall be saved in child-bearing, or with child-bearing, by the Messiah, who was born of a woman. And the especial sorrow to which the female sex is subject, should cause men to exercise their authority with much gentleness, tenderness, and affection.

According to Paul, women must be learners, and are not allowed to be public teachers in the church; for teaching is an office of authority, and the woman must not usurp authority over the man, but is to be in silence. But, notwithstanding this prohibition, good women may and ought to teach their children at home the principles of religion. Timothy from a child had known the holy scriptures; and who should teach him but his mother and grandmother? 2 Tim. 3:15. Aquila and his wife Priscilla expounded unto Apollos the way of God more perfectly; but then they did it privately, for they took him unto them, Acts 18:26. 6. Here are two very good reasons given for the man's authority over the woman, and her subjection to the man, v. 13, 14. Adam was first formed, then Eve; she was created for the man, and not the man for the woman (1 Co. 11:9); then she was deceived, and brought the man into the transgression.


Funny how no commentary says anything about domineering. In fact it states that a woman domineering over her husband is breaking God's divine command. Even your own Methodist denomination from its early roots disagrees with you.

 

[hedrick]

Oh go on. At least be honest about it like Calvin and Augustine and all the other men-folk who said women aren't fit to lead.

That's perhaps a bit too absolute in Calvin's case. While he certainly said that this was the ordinary case, he disagreed with Knox about Mary being queen of England. He cited Huldah and Deborah as examples where women were called to assume leadership. However they were unusual cases, so Calvin's view was not of course the modern one that accepts women as appropriate as leaders in ordinary circumstances.

Note however that the passage on which this discussion is supposedly based was exactly such an unusual situation: many of the men had been killed. If he took the same approach as Calvin, Isaiah's problem wouldn't have been with women stepping in in such a situation, but with the fact that Israel was in that situation in the first place.

 

[Meepy]

"Divine law prevents a woman from preaching the pulpit and administering communion. A woman administering communion is absolute blasphemy and contempt for Christ's body."

That is exalting a tradition above Scripture. And when that tradition contradicts scripture I would be concerned.

John
NZ

And yet your views contradict 1 Timothy 2:12 and 1 Corinthians 11:3. So I don't think your in a position to talk about who's contradicting scripture when a female priesthood is clearly contrary to Christendom. In fact its contrary to all 3 Abrahamic religions, Judiasm, Christianity, and Islam. You only see it in a few fangled sects here and there when rebellious ambitious women try to take it unto themselves because of pride.

Secondly oral tradition put together the bible. Everything was orally conferred.

Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. - 1 Corinthians 11:3

Okay. I'm going to stop reading right there. I know, and I think most other people know, that this just isn't true. There are gnostic teachings predating 100.

Show me one gnostic gospel that predates 100 A.D.When was Valentinius(the father of christian gnosticism) born? when did Paul write his epistles? do the math

 

[Tamara224]

ROFL! domineering

Did you get that from some feminist bible commentary?

Ah, and the ad hominem begins.

I'm pretty sure that according to unofficial internet forum rules, you automatically lose.

FWIW, synonyms of "domineer":

be in the saddle, bend, bluster, boss around, browbeat, bulldoze, bully*, call the shots, dominate, hector, henpeck, in the driver's seat, intimidate, keep under thumb, kick around, lead by the nose, menace, overbear, predominate, preponderate, prevail, push the buttons, reign, rule, rule the roost, run the show, run things, swagger, threaten, throw weight around, tyrannize

​

Word Origin & History

domineer
1580s, from Du. domineren "to rule," from M.Fr. dominer , from L. dominari "to rule, 'lord' it over" (see domination). Shakespeare's usage is not the earliest in English.
​

When a person insists on ruling over another person, he (or she) is domineering.

And that is an accurate description of many men's attitudes toward women.

You must ignore a ton of scripture when Paul states that eve was the one deceived and not Adam and it was for this reason woman can not teach the pulpit.

I do? Why don't you go ahead and point out which Scripture I'm "ignoring", then.

Didn't I already say that gnosticism didn't come into being till after Paul died?

Yes, you did already say that. It wasn't true then and it still isn't.

Did paul say, "a woman cannot teach because of a gnostic religion" that was happening at the time?

Paul did tell us the reason he was writing the letter to Timothy. The purpose of the letter is what gives us the context we need to understand what Paul was talking about. As I previously said, take a look at the first chapter of 1 Timothy. Paul describes the type of false teaching that was going on.

There is also historical evidence that gives us insight into the context. When we know of groups promoting "myths and endless genealogies" and find out what else they believed and taught... we can put two and two together.

We have to remember that Paul was writing a personal letter to his protege concerning specific concerns. We can't assume that we can understand his meaning without any of the context.

No, he stated, a woman cannot teach because Adam was first created and then Eve, and it was Eve who was the first one deceived.

Which makes perfect sense if Paul is saying "I am not [currently] permitting women to teach or authentien* a man" because the things the women were teaching were wrong... It especially makes sense if the error in their teaching had directly to do with Adam and Eve.


In light of the rest of Scripture, this is the more reasonable interpretation. Otherwise we have Paul the schizophrenic apostle to the gentiles, commending women for doing things forbidden to them.

*The issues surrounding authentien are another piece of a puzzling Scripture passage. The truth is, no one knows for sure what Paul meant by it and the word isn't found anywhere else in Scripture.

even the basic commentaries know that the reason Adam was put in authority over Eve was because she was second culpable after Satan.

The "basic commentaries" are the opinions of men. That you can find men who share your opinion is irrelevant. I too can find scholars and theologians whose "basic commentaries" of Scripture support my interpretation.

Funny how no commentary says anything about domineering. In fact it states that a woman domineering over her husband is breaking God's divine command.

Those were ALL of the commentaries ever written on Genesis 3? You're funny.

 

[ARBITER01]

I like how religion and control go hand in hand, it's easy to spot out of folks.

Paul was very specific about equality,..

Gal 3:27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ.
Gal 3:28 There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and female: for ye all are one man in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:29 And if ye are Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, heirs according to promise.

Funny how folks are quick to identify differences male and female when there is none with Christ.

 

[ARBITER01]

We have to remember that Paul was writing a personal letter to his protege concerning specific concerns.

Just wanted to magnify this section here you posted Tamara.

Paul's letter was to Timothy, not to Corinthians, or Galatians, or any of the other churches, so it is to be read in that context. We can glean learning from this letter of Paul, but Paul would not contradict himself before the churches by stating not to allow a woman to teach and preach to them, when he already said women are equal to men in the eyes of Christ.

Ministries are not men only positions.