Evangel...dichotomy?

[eaglesway]

There is a seeming paradox in the scriptures pertaining to men and women in ministry. We see in Acts that Phillip had four daughters who were prophetesses.

I would like to point out that a prophet or a prophetess in the New Testament church is not a prognosticator. They may at some point receive a word on coming events, but according to Paul, the function or prophets and prophetesses is to speak the word under inspiration- similar to what we have always called preachers.

But the one who prophesies speaks to people for their strengthening, encouraging and comfort. 1 Co 14:3


For you can all prophesy one by one, that all may learn and all may be encouraged. 32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. 33 For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints. 1 Cor 14:31-33 

Everyone was allowed to prophesy, but their prophecies were judged, it would be a humbling thing for a person just "seeking to be somebody" to speak because the discernment of the elders was strong, and the other prophets were in the Spirit, so I don't believe people just went off "willy nilly" very often. If they did I am sure they were lovingly corrected and taught concerning the will of the flesh.

There were people who were recognized as "prophets" and "prophetesses", having established gifts in inspired, edifying speech.

"Let the prophets speak one by one and let the others judge."

Now as to women being silent in the church- this is what I believe the "Whole Context" of Paul's writing indicates.

Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. 35 And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church.

All Paul is saying here is that he doesnt want to hear women questions being asked while teaching is going on. He doesnt want to hear questions asked and answered or squabbling of any kind either. Woman are to be submissive.... NOT SUBSERVIENT... merely submissive.

This has to be read in the light of ALL PAUL WROTE ON MEN AND WOMEN/HUSBANDS AND WIVES.

It is not separate from the whole topical context and AS IN EVERY CASE- it is not meant to stand alone.

Paul speaks clearly about the tenderness and mutual consideration that ought to be tendered between the sexes. He never makes women out to be second class citizens. But it is all about interpretation- and thoroughness with the topical context.

"But this I say, brethren, the time has been shortened, so that from now on those who have wives should be as though they had none;" 1 Co 7

One could interpret this in myriad ways if they did not regard the rest of what Paul wrote. One could even use it to justify adultery and fornication! It only becomes reasonable IN CONTEXT.

Paul writes...

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. Gal 3:28

So, was Paul a confused idiot, or a  double minded sexist?

If you look at history you find Paul was the most egalitarian man who ever lived, considering that in every culture of the day, to say there is no male nor female in Christ and to accord respect and preisthood to women was outrageously alien!


What(imo) did Paul mean when He said I SUFFER NOT A WOMAN TO TEACH OR TO USURP AUTHORITY "OVER A MAN"......  :laugh:

Here goes my honest opinion on that, is there a smiley for ducking? :o)

It is all about interpreting the words "over a man".

The order in creation at present is God, Christ, orders of angelic beings, man, woman

The order of creation after the restoration of all things will be God, Christ- and then no order because all rule power and authority will have been anulled, look at it in 1 Cor 15 23-28, its there

Now, bear with me...

In Jude it says that certain angels "left there proper domain" and were therfore bound in "aidos chains"

Everyone has their proper domain because "rule, power and authority" has not yet been done away.

Everyone is called to serve within their domain, "as unto the Lord", and EVRYONE IS TO CONDUCT THEMSELVES AS A HUMBLE SERVANT.

So, in the assembly women are not to assert themselves over men in deference to the domains of God.

The key phrase is "teach or usurp authority over a man"- which in any interlinear will prove out that is reads teach to "exercise authority over a man".

And this is proper, in respect of the domains God has established, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO ANY IDEA OF INFERIORITY- which Paul made clear.  But God has created an order. Eve was created so the man would not be alone, a help "meet"(fitting in form and in gifts) to assist and live in "SYMBIOSIS AND SYNCHRONICITY" with a man. This is, in the ideal- what God intended and Paul understands that in this order the body will flow most effectively because it is God's design.

In the general assembly, I think women were allowed to prophesy- because Paul says "ALL MAY PROPHESY" and Acts tells us Phillip had four daughters who were prophetesses. Paul said,

4But if an unbeliever or uninstructed person comes in while everyone is prophesying, he will be convicted and called to account by all, 25and the secrets his of heart be will be revealed. So he will fall facedown and worship God, proclaiming, "God is truly among you!"


Why? Because the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two edged sword dividing asunder soul and spirit.

But Paul also said, "Let everything be done decently and in order" and that includes acknowledging the domains of God, and women were to defer to men in authority, and still ought to in the general assembly.

As unto the Lord, and unto decency and order- not as respecters of persons, not as unto man or men pleasing or subservience.

In Romans 12 Paul says, What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be edified.

This just hits the high points, and it is just an opinion and my personal belief is that there ARE ALWAYS EXCEPTIONS, because God is not a God of law, but a God of life.

[marie glen]

I had a pretty close friend pass away, suddenly, so I had to make a few trips

My condolences Dandelion.. I know you know you will see your friend again and all being happy.. but it is still difficult and we never really get over missing those who leave us.. bless you dear.. the Lord loves you!! So very much!  :HeartThrob: :flowerred:

[marie glen]

There is a seeming paradox in the scriptures pertaining to men and women in ministry. We see in Acts that Phillip had four daughters who were prophetesses.

I would like to point out that a prophet or a prophetess in the New Testament church is not a prognosticator. They may at some point receive a word on coming events, but according to Paul, the function or prophets and prophetesses is to speak the word under inspiration- similar to what we have always called preachers.

But the one who prophesies speaks to people for their strengthening, encouraging and comfort. 1 Co 14:3


For you can all prophesy one by one, that all may learn and all may be encouraged. 32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. 33 For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints. 1 Cor 14:31-33 

Everyone was allowed to prophesy, but their prophecies were judged, it would be a humbling thing for a person just "seeking to be somebody" to speak because the discernment of the elders was strong, and the other prophets were in the Spirit, so I don't believe people just went off "willy nilly" very often. If they did I am sure they were lovingly corrected and taught concerning the will of the flesh.

There were people who were recognized as "prophets" and "prophetesses", having established gifts in inspired, edifying speech.

"Let the prophets speak one by one and let the others judge."

Now as to women being silent in the church- this is what I believe the "Whole Context" of Paul's writing indicates.

Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. 35 And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church.

All Paul is saying here is that he doesnt want to hear women questions being asked while teaching is going on. He doesnt want to hear questions asked and answered or squabbling of any kind either. Woman are to be submissive.... NOT SUBSERVIENT... merely submissive.

This has to be read in the light of ALL PAUL WROTE ON MEN AND WOMEN/HUSBANDS AND WIVES.

It is not separate from the whole topical context and AS IN EVERY CASE- it is not meant to stand alone.

Paul speaks clearly about the tenderness and mutual consideration that ought to be tendered between the sexes. He never makes women out to be second class citizens. But it is all about interpretation- and thoroughness with the topical context.

"But this I say, brethren, the time has been shortened, so that from now on those who have wives should be as though they had none;" 1 Co 7

One could interpret this in myriad ways if they did not regard the rest of what Paul wrote. One could even use it to justify adultery and fornication! It only becomes reasonable IN CONTEXT.

Paul writes...

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. Gal 3:28

So, was Paul a confused idiot, or a  double minded sexist?

If you look at history you find Paul was the most egalitarian man who ever lived, considering that in every culture of the day, to say there is no male nor female in Christ and to accord respect and preisthood to women was outrageously alien!


What(imo) did Paul mean when He said I SUFFER NOT A WOMAN TO TEACH OR TO USURP AUTHORITY "OVER A MAN"......  :laugh:

Here goes my honest opinion on that, is there a smiley for ducking? :o)

It is all about interpreting the words "over a man".

The order in creation at present is God, Christ, orders of angelic beings, man, woman

The order of creation after the restoration of all things will be God, Christ- and then no order because all rule power and authority will have been anulled, look at it in 1 Cor 15 23-28, its there

Now, bear with me...

In Jude it says that certain angels "left there proper domain" and were therfore bound in "aidos chains"

Everyone has their proper domain because "rule, power and authority" has not yet been done away.

Everyone is called to serve within their domain, "as unto the Lord", and EVRYONE IS TO CONDUCT THEMSELVES AS A HUMBLE SERVANT.

So, in the assembly women are not to assert themselves over men in deference to the domains of God.

The key phrase is "teach or usurp authority over a man"- which in any interlinear will prove out that is reads teach to "exercise authority over a man".

And this is proper, in respect of the domains God has established, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO ANY IDEA OF INFERIORITY- which Paul made clear.  But God has created an order. Eve was created so the man would not be alone, a help "meet"(fitting in form and in gifts) to assist and live in "SYMBIOSIS AND SYNCHRONICITY" with a man. This is, in the ideal- what God intended and Paul understands that in this order the body will flow most effectively because it is God's design.

In the general assembly, I think women were allowed to prophesy- because Paul says "ALL MAY PROPHESY" and Acts tells us Phillip had four daughters who were prophetesses. Paul said,

4But if an unbeliever or uninstructed person comes in while everyone is prophesying, he will be convicted and called to account by all, 25and the secrets his of heart be will be revealed. So he will fall facedown and worship God, proclaiming, "God is truly among you!"


Why? Because the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two edged sword dividing asunder soul and spirit.

But Paul also said, "Let everything be done decently and in order" and that includes acknowledging the domains of God, and women were to defer to men in authority, and still ought to in the general assembly.

As unto the Lord, and unto decency and order- not as respecters of persons, not as unto man or men pleasing or subservience.

In Romans 12 Paul says, What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be edified.

This just hits the high points, and it is just an opinion and my personal belief is that there ARE ALWAYS EXCEPTIONS, because God is not a God of law, but a God of life.

I very much agree with your "opinion" Eaglesway and find nothing in it to disagree with :gsmile:

[Seth]

There is a seeming paradox in the scriptures pertaining to men and women in ministry. We see in Acts that Phillip had four daughters who were prophetesses.

I would like to point out that a prophet or a prophetess in the New Testament church is not a prognosticator. They may at some point receive a word on coming events, but according to Paul, the function or prophets and prophetesses is to speak the word under inspiration- similar to what we have always called preachers.

But the one who prophesies speaks to people for their strengthening, encouraging and comfort. 1 Co 14:3


For you can all prophesy one by one, that all may learn and all may be encouraged. 32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. 33 For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints. 1 Cor 14:31-33 

Everyone was allowed to prophesy, but their prophecies were judged, it would be a humbling thing for a person just "seeking to be somebody" to speak because the discernment of the elders was strong, and the other prophets were in the Spirit, so I don't believe people just went off "willy nilly" very often. If they did I am sure they were lovingly corrected and taught concerning the will of the flesh.

There were people who were recognized as "prophets" and "prophetesses", having established gifts in inspired, edifying speech.

"Let the prophets speak one by one and let the others judge."

Now as to women being silent in the church- this is what I believe the "Whole Context" of Paul's writing indicates.

Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. 35 And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church.

All Paul is saying here is that he doesnt want to hear women questions being asked while teaching is going on. He doesnt want to hear questions asked and answered or squabbling of any kind either. Woman are to be submissive.... NOT SUBSERVIENT... merely submissive.

This has to be read in the light of ALL PAUL WROTE ON MEN AND WOMEN/HUSBANDS AND WIVES.

It is not separate from the whole topical context and AS IN EVERY CASE- it is not meant to stand alone.

Paul speaks clearly about the tenderness and mutual consideration that ought to be tendered between the sexes. He never makes women out to be second class citizens. But it is all about interpretation- and thoroughness with the topical context.

"But this I say, brethren, the time has been shortened, so that from now on those who have wives should be as though they had none;" 1 Co 7

One could interpret this in myriad ways if they did not regard the rest of what Paul wrote. One could even use it to justify adultery and fornication! It only becomes reasonable IN CONTEXT.

Paul writes...

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. Gal 3:28

So, was Paul a confused idiot, or a  double minded sexist?

If you look at history you find Paul was the most egalitarian man who ever lived, considering that in every culture of the day, to say there is no male nor female in Christ and to accord respect and preisthood to women was outrageously alien!


What(imo) did Paul mean when He said I SUFFER NOT A WOMAN TO TEACH OR TO USURP AUTHORITY "OVER A MAN"......  :laugh:

Here goes my honest opinion on that, is there a smiley for ducking? :o)

It is all about interpreting the words "over a man".

The order in creation at present is God, Christ, orders of angelic beings, man, woman

The order of creation after the restoration of all things will be God, Christ- and then no order because all rule power and authority will have been anulled, look at it in 1 Cor 15 23-28, its there

Now, bear with me...

In Jude it says that certain angels "left there proper domain" and were therfore bound in "aidos chains"

Everyone has their proper domain because "rule, power and authority" has not yet been done away.

Everyone is called to serve within their domain, "as unto the Lord", and EVRYONE IS TO CONDUCT THEMSELVES AS A HUMBLE SERVANT.

So, in the assembly women are not to assert themselves over men in deference to the domains of God.

The key phrase is "teach or usurp authority over a man"- which in any interlinear will prove out that is reads teach to "exercise authority over a man".

And this is proper, in respect of the domains God has established, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO ANY IDEA OF INFERIORITY- which Paul made clear.  But God has created an order. Eve was created so the man would not be alone, a help "meet"(fitting in form and in gifts) to assist and live in "SYMBIOSIS AND SYNCHRONICITY" with a man. This is, in the ideal- what God intended and Paul understands that in this order the body will flow most effectively because it is God's design.

In the general assembly, I think women were allowed to prophesy- because Paul says "ALL MAY PROPHESY" and Acts tells us Phillip had four daughters who were prophetesses. Paul said,

4But if an unbeliever or uninstructed person comes in while everyone is prophesying, he will be convicted and called to account by all, 25and the secrets his of heart be will be revealed. So he will fall facedown and worship God, proclaiming, "God is truly among you!"


Why? Because the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two edged sword dividing asunder soul and spirit.

But Paul also said, "Let everything be done decently and in order" and that includes acknowledging the domains of God, and women were to defer to men in authority, and still ought to in the general assembly.

As unto the Lord, and unto decency and order- not as respecters of persons, not as unto man or men pleasing or subservience.

In Romans 12 Paul says, What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be edified.

This just hits the high points, and it is just an opinion and my personal belief is that there ARE ALWAYS EXCEPTIONS, because God is not a God of law, but a God of life.

I think that is a pretty even handed view of it. Paul also recommended that husbands love wives as Christ loves the church. Christ made himself of no reputation, and washed the feet of the disciples. This idea of submission doesn't mean the man gets to be Mr. Bossypants. He should be serving her.

[eaglesway]

Absolutely!

Not to mention listening to her, respecting her opinions and exhortations. She is equal as the servant of Jesus Christ and disciple of the kingdom.

[Seth]

Yes  :thumbsup:. And I really feel that if we are all loving eachother the way we are told to do so, the issue of authority and power really shouldn't be an issue inside or outside marriage. Who cares who has the authority, until some people start craving it? It only becomes an issue when we start thinking about ourselves. If both people are putting the other person above themselves, when is power an issue?

I think one of the reasons these scriptures are so controversial is because we rarely see the love we are meant to demonstrate actually happening in the world, so it's hard to imagine how Paul's recommendation in relationships and the church works without the awesome self-lowering love that supposed to go with it. The best people to have authority, imo, are the ones who don't think they should have it, or worry about it (like Moses "I'm not a good speaker" or Jonah etc), not ones who crave it for their own sakes.

[eaglesway]

I agree. I also think that people fail to look at the whole context of what is written when discussing topics, so they may attribute to Paul(for instance) or to Christians in general(another instance), or God or Christ, things that simply are not true in a whole context view of the issues - they are simply reactions to the default opinions of fundies and legalists and religionists who have popularized all kinds of garbage in Christ's name.

[Seth]

 :thumbsup:

[CST]

Again, if I say

Person A was fooled and became a transgressor
Person B was not fooled.

That does not automatically mean that Person B didn't transgress later, or in another way than being fooled by Satan. That's where your interpretation is emerging. The passage does NOT say "Adam did not ever transgress." It says he wasn't deceived. His transgression did not occur through deception of Satan. Do you think Adam was perfect and sinless or something?

This is called the Argument to the Negative where lack of positive evidence must prove the opposite: "Adam must not have sinned because the verse doesn't say he did." Just because this particular verse doesn't say Adam sinned is not proof that he didn't at another point in time. It just doesn't say. It only says he wasn't deceived.

No I do not think that, obviously. I think that's what the text seems to be saying hence my objection because it obviously wouldn't be correct in the context of the rest of the Bible. Several of those translation use the phrase 'the transgression'. Now in English we call the term 'the' the definite article meaning there one specific something and not several of the when we use the term 'a' called the indefinite article because there are many of them and one or 'a' is under discussion. The phrasing says that the woman is 'in the transgression' but the man can't be because there aren't other transgressions here to go round. But this isn't really my point my point is that why does the 'being deceived' part eclipse the sinning without being deceived part? Why is it worse for women because one woman was fooled and better for men when one man sinned very deliberately? Which is what it seems to be saying as soon as I read the guilt of sin into both parties. Oh, and Adam was fooled by Satan even if not directly. Unless Adam willfully choose to obey the Devil over God.

Arguing from the negative is very useful in the Bible, if we didn't have it we'd have an awful lot more contradictions in the text them we do. Particularly in the nativity narratives. It's very clear that Matthew and Luke have very different ideas of the circumstances of Jesus' birth than each other but fortunately they don't say a lot of them directly so the contradictions aren't in the text of the Bible, but if you put any thought into it you can see what they seem to think.

This isn't just a matter of the verse not saying Adam didn't sin. This is a letter to Timothy, not an Epistle to one of the Churches, it's a private correspondence I'm not sure why we have it. Presumably Timothy has a lot of information we lack and knew Adam sinned. But nowhere in the letter does it say this. Now imagine that you didn't have any other books of the Bible. Do you really think it would be reasonable to imagine that this man Adam sinned even though it only says the woman committed 'the transgression'. Or do you think it would be more reasonable to imagine that it's saying that only the woman sinned?

It doesn't suggest that to me. It just mean with care. Also, Jesus pre-existed. It could be that he was chosen over angels.

Jesus is God, God is responsible for the World. The World was made through Him it's part of Him. It not an angels job to save it. God purposed the World to fall and for Him to save it Himself there are no alternatives.

Well, however anyone understands greatness, the comparison Jesus is making to a child does not imply that we should reason or think as one about the scriptures. In some ways we should be like a child, and in other ways we should be more mature. Jesus provides the way in which we should be like children directly in the passage.

What, humility? The thing about that is that Jesus advocates humility an awful lot during His ministry and it usually referred to becoming servile. And that isn't slaving away all our lives it means think about what we can do for others before we think about what we want others to do for us. And this is good, but very hard.

But you can't expect children to think like that, they actually do need to think about what others can do for them because there's so much children haven't learned to do yet. They'll also more creative than most adults, more imaginative than most adults and have a spectacular capacity to see when adults are trying to hoodwink them. So what? Is Jesus simply instructing everyone to remember they're dependency on God the way children are dependent on their own parents. Maybe but given that I don't where this child's parent are meant to be here it seems hard to imagine that as the be all and end all of the illustration.

Being witness to the resurrection does not mean authority. Also, God required the Jews to avoid pork. Now we don't have to. I am looking for examples where Jesus gave authority to women over men in the church.

They were instructed to tell the apostles, basically to teach the resurrection. Effectively these women were the first people commissioned to deliver the Gospel. Authority is presupposed in the context because this is a message that can't be ignored.

But I'm going to try and be honest about things like reverse arguments from the negative. The example above is one of the examples where women seem to be give  authority by Jesus in the Gospels another peculiar one I couldn't remember where to find at the time and so needed to check. Having done so it's lost a little of it's original weight without actually changing what it says.

In the Gospel of Luke it is written: "After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come." (Luk 10:1)

There nothing particularly spectacular there, well except that that's flood language most commonly associated in the Bible with animals going into the Ark, two and two, male and female going into the Ark. So it would therefore imply the possibility at least that up to half that number might be females. Well, that's what I wondered when I read it anyway.

Well, perhaps not on looking to find it again I also discovered it in Mark. But in Mark it appears to be much smaller and refer to the apostles so is a lot less likely to mean that is this case, although your point about the Argument to the Negative does somewhat apply here. It doesn't say they're not all twelve of them put with women and sent out, so they could still be.

'And he called unto him the twelve, and began to send them forth by two and two; and gave them power over unclean spirits;' (Mar 6:7)

I have other cases well at least one and some others by parallel but that enough to be going on with for now, I think I my time is getting away from me. Which also means I can't reply to any of my other friends here today. Sorry, to them.

[Seth]

No I do not think that obviously. I think that's what the text seems to be saying hence my objection because it obviously wouldn't be correct in the context of the rest of the Bible. Several of those translation use the phrase 'the transgression'. Now in English we call the term 'the' the definite article meaning there one specific something and not several of the when we use the term 'a' called the indefinite article because there are many of them and one or 'a' is under discussion. The phrasing says that the woman is 'in the transgression' but the man can't be because there aren't other transgressions here to go round.

The reason for the translations that say "fell into transgression" is because the greek says "gynē exapatētheisa en parabasei gonen" or "the woman into transgression has come." So, the meaning would be more like "having been deceived, the woman came into transgression." The major point Paul would be making is that the woman fell into transgression through deception, not that Adam NEVER sinned. I could see why the KJV rendering would cause confusion, but I think the later translations attempt to rectify that.

Also the definite article can refer to a specific transgression they both fell under. "The transgression" = disobedience. So Eve fell into the transgression through deception, while Adam tell into the transgression by other means.

But this isn't really my point my point is that why does the 'being deceived' part eclipse the sinning without being deceived part? Why is it worse for women because one woman was fooled and better for men when one man sinned very deliberately? Which is what it seems to be saying as soon as I read the guilt of sin into both parties. Oh, and Adam was fooled by Satan even if not directly. Unless Adam willfully choose to obey the Devil over God.

Paul was pretty clear that there transgression on both sides in the full scope of his writing. As to the importance of deception, I don't know. We'd have to ask him. Paul does attribute death coming into the world through Adam though, not Eve, so I think Adam doesn't come away very clean in the whole deal though.

This isn't just a matter of the verse not saying Adam didn't sin. This is a letter to Timothy, not an Epistle to one of the Churches, it's a private correspondence I'm not sure why we have it. Presumably Timothy has a lot of information we lack and knew Adam sinned. But nowhere in the letter does it say this. Now imagine that you didn't have any other books of the Bible. Do you really think it would be reasonable to imagine that this man Adam sinned even though it only says the woman committed 'the transgression'. Or do you think it would be more reasonable to imagine that it's saying that only the woman sinned?

Again, it doesn't say that Adam never sinned. It just says that Eve sinned through deception. If there were no other books of the Bible, I would have to say I don't know, rather than just asserting that he never sinned based on lack of information of whether he did or not.

Jesus is God, God is responsible for the World. The World was made through Him it's part of Him. It not an angels job to save it.

That's because the Father chose the Son, not them.

What, humility? The thing about that is that Jesus advocates humility an awful lot during His ministry and it usually referred to becoming servile. And that isn't slaving away all our lives it means think about what we can do for others before we think about what we want others to do for us. And this is good, but very hard.

But you can't expect children to think like that, they actually do need to think about what others can do for them because there's so much children haven't learned to do yet. They'll also more creative than most adults, more imaginative than most adults and have a spectacular capacity to see when adults are trying to hoodwink them. So what? Is Jesus simply instructing everyone to remember they're dependency on God the way children are dependent on their own parents. Maybe but given that I don't where this child's parent are meant to be here it seems hard to imagine that as the be all and end all of the illustration.

I think Jesus is providing enough context within his own statement to determine his meaning. The point being, in some ways we should be like children, and in other ways, not.

They were instructed to tell the apostles, basically to teach the resurrection. Effectively these women were the first people commissioned to deliver the Gospel. Authority is presupposed in the context because this is a message that can't be ignored.

I don't see them having authority just because of that. I'm not saying whether or not women should or should not have authority. But you made the positive statement that Jesus gave authority to women over men, and I don't see the evidence for that.

[Seth]

Regarding Eve, it could be that Paul is not saying that women are easily deceived. That would be odd since they can prophecy and be in charge of very important tasks in the church. But, maybe Paul is paying attention to the order of things. Eve sinned first and was deceived by the serpent. Adam sinned second and was not deceived. Christ is second as well (second Adam) and also was not deceived, though he did not sin.

It could be that Paul wants to preserve the parallels to Christ and Adam as reflected in church culture. This is just a guess. Again, it would be odd to think that women can be more easily deceived since they were given power to prophecy and go give very important news of Christ etc.

[eaglesway]

Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

      15But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. Ro 5

Again, i think folks segment the word too much and draw positions from too limited a scope of information.

Paul definitely names sin in Adam. Sin is a broad stroke, as we see in Rom 5, it is not the similarity of the exact trangression that causes the condition. The condition is general, and the result of heritage. Adam sinned, so all his childreen were born into the general condition that fell upon him for his transgression- death. Eve's sin was that she did not rely upon the word spoken to her, and was deceived.

Adms sin was rebellion to a direct command- he knew exactly what he was doing.

Yet it is Paul who says, "Evil men and seducers will wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived." Note, he does not refer to women, but men being deceived, as in many other places, like Romans 1, "they worshipped the creation over the creator and were darkened in their understanding.

But Paul definitely says, "god is the head of Christ, Christ the head of man, man is the head of woman"- this is about created domains, function and purpose. We are all called to abide within our domain in terms of function and respect. In the family, the man is supposed to lay down his life for his bride, as Christ did- so a man is measured by how he fulfills his responsibility within his domain. man did not create that domain, God did.

Women are judged by how they fulfill their responsibilities within their domain, and it is up to each individual man and woman to determine exactly how God has placed them and where the functional responsibility is according to their individual circumstance.

Life is full of exceptions and God is aware of that and His generalities are not laws that He binds Himself by, as we see in the case of Deborah. but the general principle is that the family and the body of Christ function best in respect towards the general policies God has set forth in creation.

Today, in this era of mass confusion and lawless anarchy where love has grown cold because lawlessness abounds.... well, I think I have said all I have to say on this LOL :o)

[Seth]

I am getting the impression, although nothing is stated outright, that there is some critique about, either the authenticity or reliability of the letter to Timothy based on how Paul brings up Eve's sin and seems to say that Adam did not sin.

I am not sure if that is the general idea here, but my whole point is not to get into a debate about women in the ministry. My point is to say that Paul, in the letter to Timothy, is not contradicting his other writings where he confirms that Adam sinned. The letter to Timothy does not say "Adam did not sin."

Again, I am getting lost as to what any of this has to do with the two-evangel theory.  :dontknow:

[eaglesway]

lol point taken. lets get back on point. the verses in romans 5 make it clear that Adam sinned ;o)

[CST]

It seems we read things differently. I don't think being 'like a child' means being carnally minded when Jesus says it, and I don't think you you have to be born again. But being born again, does fit in the context given that Jesus says become like a little child and uses a real little child as am example. What I think about St. Paul's use of that passage above. Because of the context, that he's using it allegorically. It's hard to read it as meaning 'before he was a Christian.' that doesn't make sense in the context of a society where childhood actually often lasted a lot less long than it does these days. Paul would have spent a lot of his childhood learning to be a Pharisee, then he stopped learning and became a full blown Pharisee at which point he would also have been considered a 'man' by the society he was in.

As I mentioned in the above post he wasn't a very nice person when he was a Pharisee. But that doesn't mean he wasn't recognized as a man. Although there are so many symbolic ways to present this too, people can problem transcend from child to adult countless times in all sorts of areas of their life as they go through it.

  You have no  arguments from me   on how to see   GODS WORD ,CST ,,,

We are all in different places that is for sure ..  :friendstu:

  but     I should have said before    Christ Spirit   WITH GODS AS JOINED , come upon Him to teach Him a new and living way He was persecuting the Body of Christ  ..Acts    9

I sure can see him doing the works of   satan his father the  devil as a Pharisee    very prideful and ignorantly  in darkness without eyes to see or ears to hear or heart to understand the HOLY SPIRIT    as it was NOT given to him yet , as a      birthing out of due time   1Cor 15 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.  [  HE WAS BORN AGAIN ]    in my opinion   as Jesus did come as a thief in the night , his hour of darkness ..

17 Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, "Brother Saul, the Lord—Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here—has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit." 18 Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul's eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized, 19 and after taking some food, he regained his strength.

I do see the   old law of   Levi-athan    as the serpent of the seas many people's tongues and nations ..[ the King over all the children of PRIDE ]  Job 41 . [as the levi  priesthood  with many sacrifices     pride comes before  a FALL   , falling on your knees    to the earth  and descent   as  baptism   of death   ,   but to those whom betray ,  the sin remained because  of them saying WE SEE !
all allegorically     speaking      but GOD provided ONE LAMB  , By One would  it  change that  priesthood   forever    THIS ACT OR WORK  OPENLY,    to His own HOLY ONE   SET
as  perfect and never ending ..      Only God Himself can teach us His truth  , many speak  as I am to you today , but it is the Lord   whom freely gives us  His truth   so He is glorified in the earth as it is in heaven   as we   learn His righteousness &  judgments ..

Hello, Rose :)

Glad we're not arguing. I like your word plays to it demonstrates an application of imaginative which I often find constructive. Although I'm aware it's much harder in the Hebrew. I don't know if Levi-athan  actually looks like that in the Hebrew although I expect you might. Although why should the Hebrew be all that matters anyway.

Although to be accurate (though not necessarily helpful) since we're discussing the Bible it's "Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall, it's a parallelism (I think that's the right term) which is why it edits like that. It's not helpful now but might be worth remembering later.

But indeed only God can teach His truth, just I don't feel able to know how to identify it. I thought I'd identified some when I read the "Two and two" line in Luke, now it seems not so. So what's the point?

[CST]

Hope this is helpful. I know it is long. Forgive me, but without its entirety, it loses its cohesiveness.

Jesus was the complete fulfillment of the Law.....the embodiment of Love, given to us directly by God, to complete the Law........Love incarnate, yet still a human who could relate to us, and be one of us.....He came unto His own, but His own received Him not.....yet, He gave us the ability to become children of God.

D.                              :cloud9:

Hi, Dandelion I'm glad you're still here I thought you'd left. I tried to look at your profile and was told you didn't exist.

Thank you, CST, for noticing I wasn't around too much the last 2 weeks. I had a pretty close friend pass away, suddenly, so I had to make a few trips out to LI, and then paperwork for work, etc. I am very hard to get rid of....I tend to stick to things like glue.....so, if I am not here, there is a reason. I have no intentions of leaving 'the Tent' as I refer to it. Oh, yes, that is what my profile always says...not to worry.

I see the debate continues.............

D.

Thank, so sorry to hear about your friend. Your profile is really odd, is it a fault or did you (or someone) manage to intentionally set it that way for whatever reason? I really did think that would only happen if an account got deleted.

[CST]

I think I'm a bit behind in this thread.. and haven't time to carefully read all.. but wanted to mention one or two things.. The apostles after meeting with and listening to Paul, gave his gospel he was preaching to the gentiles (and Israel/synagogues) approval.. Paul called himself an apostle, lastly chosen as one out of time.. Some things Paul wrote about women's place I did not like.. but then again, he also wrote that in Jesus there is neither Jew nor greek, male nor female.. and Priscilla, for one, definitely seemed to be involved with teaching. As far as authority, I don't really trust "authority" figures, etc. but that's just me.. I do trust the apostles and their witness.. Which the scriptures say miracles in their day was a witness and testimony that what was occurring was truthful.

I have often pondered the truth of how Eve was deceived.. (didn't our heavenly Father know that would occur.. Deception, that is, when He created man and woman aFter the rebellion of Satan?) And doesn't the scripture say all are born into sin having been born of Adam's line? Including the "as in Adam all die, even so in Jesus all will live.."

I  decided to look up some of the greek in the verse - 1 Timothy 2:12 - to be quiet in church - http://studybible.info/strongs/G2271 "teach" - http://studybible.info/strongs/G1321 and "authority (over) - http://studybible.info/strongs/G831
- this one was the most interesting..

And as with all topics, I don't believe it is one verse (or section) but all pertaining verses.. so the "no male nor female in Christ" also applies.. I do feel one place where the women were told to be quiet, is a case where during church some ladies were carrying on conversations!

And also, male or female, I don't think we are supposed to bury talents nor gifts.. (wow, how frustrating that would be.. or only speak to other women? :Chinscratch: does Jesus love me less because I am a woman?  I do tend to prefer men to be the leaders.. if available.. And I do submit myself to my own husband.. and am not interested in any sort of authority over any others..

There's an ad I come across selling "women's head coverings for christian women" and I am offended by it whenever I see it.. It reminds me of that other god, alla h, and says to me, you are inferior.. Yes, I know Paul said about being covered, but I think it was a customs thing, and covered today is still decency.. (1 Cor 11)

Wasn't that part of the curse, when God told Eve the man would exercise authority over her.. You know, I hate cooking and all that domestic stuff all take for granted (which I've been doing all my life) if i had to confine myself to that :eek: bake sales.. :laughing7: no offense meant (please, and forgive me if my thoughts on this offend)
    :Peace2: :gsmile:

The Apostles did approve Paul's gospel, which should really be Christ gospel, this thread is about the two Evangels but I still think there's only one and it's Christ's but, I suppose the fact that at one point there were disputes between the Apostles and Paul might be another why this idea snuck into the text of the Bible.

I'm pretty sure that the common understanding of what Paul meant was when he made his announcement about there being no Jew/Greek, Male/Female, Slave/Free in Christ he was making a spiritual statement about how God is Lord of all and Christ is Savior of all and the same faith saves people in one category group as easily as the next. He obviously wasn't making a social equality statement (although he may have been setting up for one) because obviously slaves will remain slaves and no amount of juggling with words will change that and women who are kept in slavery to the traditions of men remain in slavery to the traditions of men and I don't think Paul's making any effort to change that (although God may be setting up for it through him). Of course, I'm not taking the word 'authority' as shorthand for one step away from 'authority figure' one step away from 'autocrat' it simply means that if women don't have authority what they say or think doesn't count for anything because you can't consider anything they say on merit because you simply argue that Paul's told us not to act on women's authority so doing what they suggest however patiently and politely would be disobeying Paul.

It demeans women before God from a passage doesn't even make any sense. It generally understood that when preachers speak it's the Holy Spirit speaking through them anyway so what this discrimination suggests is that if a man gets up to give instruction, God will look down from Heaven and He will see the man and He will fill him with the Holy Spirit and he will speak with much wisdom and passion, while if a women does it God will look down from Heaven and see it is a woman and He won't bother and she'll just drone on for as long as anyone will later. Gifts and talents don't come into it women aren't going to have that one.

This is what Paul's argument here suggests (perhaps not intentionally), there is no rational reason why women will be any better or worse on this than man they can speak and the listener can take or leave what they said. Except in practice Paul has eternally forbidden them from doing that, forbidden men who have authority now, from doing that, on the basis of a sin that Jesus came to overthrow the consequences of. Or maybe that's incorrect as well? He died for Adam sin, Eve's sin there's nothing doing, except that goes against the prophetic aspect of Genesis. "Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty." (1 Tim. 2:15) What, childbearing? Not faith of Jesus? Maybe the answer to your question is 'Yes'. I find it unbelievable, but statement like that do seem to invite it.

I totally agree about the covering problem too, yes it's good for modesty. But I'm sure there are better ways for women to be modest when the situation demands it.

It was indirectly part of the curse God says "I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." (Gen. 3:16)

Sorrow and conception, that's too distinct things which modern translators tend to edit down to God saying He'll make her labour more painful because that seems to make sense to modern even though the Hebrew has many other words for pain that fit better than the word here translated as 'sorrow'. The word translated as 'conception' appears to mean 'gestation' it's the only one that makes sense 'sorrow' seems to mean a state of emotional guilt because she's bringing her baby into a world she's ruined. That's a hunch but the words here translated really aren't so common in the Bible IIRC.

The point here seems to be that the women feels so bad about what's happened she's basically going to allow the man to 'dominate her' it's not God putting the women into Adam's power because she's misbehaved that's not what happens. Although to be honest that whole passage seems to point towards sex from what I can see. It's like God saying 'pregnancy will be bad but not so bad as to put you off having more children, you'll want more children with your husband.' That I get. Of course, it's the Bible. It can have multiple levels.

[CHB]

 

Here is a Bible Study I did one time in a Baptist Church. It's just my understanding of women teaching men.


              Should Women Teach In Church?


1Tim. 2:11-12 says " let the woman learn in silence with all  subjection.   which is  [A person under the authority or control of another] { (Verse 12) But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over { the} man,  but to be in silence.

Personally, I think this is speaking about a man and wife situation, where a wife shouldn't try to take authority or control away from her husband, not that all the men should be over all the woman when it comes to teaching because in some cases in the Old Testament we have women who are in authority over men. Deborah was a judge of Israel for example, she was also a prophetess.  (Judges 4. 4-14).  Deborah even went with Barak to war against Sisera.  So, it isn't saying a woman cannot have a moment where she can tell something to her husband, it's that the woman should not be the teacher over her husband, but that the woman is actually under the teaching authority of her husband. He is the head of the household, spiritual speaking. That's really what it amounts to.
  We can see that the New Testament clearly shows that both men and women recieve the gifts of the Holy Spirit without distinction in regard to sex. Included among these is the gift of teaching, and other related gifts, such as prophesying {basically preaching} exortation, and the word of wisdom and knowledge.  Women prophets are referred to both in the Old and New Testaments. Paul instructed older women to teach the younger women.                                           
1Cor11:4-5 suggests that both men and women were free to pray or prophecy in the open meeting of the Church, though the woman must do it in a way that she recognizes the role of her husband. From the viewpoint of spiritual gifts it seems that "in Christ there is neither male nor female" (Gal. 3:28).
There are certain referrences in the New Testament where women were used in the ministry. Almost all commentators agree that Priscilla and her husband Aquila were side by side companions of Paul in his ministry and of the two Priscilla was the more gifted and capable teacher, since her name is most often listed first. They together were the instructors of Apollos in his early preaching efforts. Here is a clear indication of a knowledgeable woman being used in the teaching of a man with no hint of an objection of paul. (1Cor. 16:19

1 Cor. 14:33-35) For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all Churches of the Saints. (Verse 34) Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commended to be under obedience, as also saith the law. (Verse 35) and if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for a women to speak in the Church.
Now Paul surely did not teach one thing and practice another. If in (1Cor. 11), he speaks with approval of a woman praying or prophesying in public, surely in Corinthians  14 he does not contradict himself by forbidding women even to open their mouths. We must look at the overall topic of the chapter. We have to ask ourselves "who is being spoken to" then, who, what where, to get the picture. Picture yourself in that time and place. In Corinth the problem was one of conducting the meeting. Tongues were to be controlled, so was prophesying,  They were to remember that "God is not the author of disorder but of peace" then he warns against women speaking in Church. It seems from this that Paul was more concerned about women who disrupted the meetings and caused confusion. Paul closes with "let all things be done decently and in order. Then in (1Tim. 3:14-15) These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly, but if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God. If no woman should ever teach a man then Paul should have rebuked Priscilla for having a part in teaching Apollos.

Here are some examples of women teachers in the Bible:
(Luke 2:36-38) And there was one Anna, a prophetess, (what is a prophetess?) it's the same as a prophet. The defination is. [One who foretells what is to come; a person inspired, and appointed by God to reveal his will, or make known the truths of the Bible and urge men to obedience.]  then you go down to the next verse and it says "she was a widow of about fourscore and four years, which departed not from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day. And she coming in that instant gave thanks likewise unto the Lord, and spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem. 
(Acts 2:17-18) And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, 
(Verse 18) And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:
(Acts 18:26) And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.
(Acts 21:9)  Speaking of Phillips daughters. "And the same man had four daughters, virgins, which did prophecy."
Rom. 16:1-4  I commend unto you Phebe our sister,, which is a servant of the Church which is at Cenchrea: that you receive her in the Lord as becometh saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you: for she hath been a succourer of many and of myself also. Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus.
(Phil. 4:3) And I entreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which labored with me in the gospel.   
In (2John 1), it seems that John is writing to a female who is leader of  the Church. "The elder unto the elect lady and her children, (Verse 4) I rejoiced greatly that I found of thy children walking in truth. (Verse 5) and now I beseech thee, lady, not as though I wrote a new commandment unto thee. (Verse 13) The children of thy elect sister greet thee."

Old Testament examples:
Miriam  (Ex. 15:20) And Miriam the prophetess. She was the sister of Aaron.

Huldah  (2Kings) 22:12-20) these 5 men "went unto Huldah the prophetess to inquire about the Lord.

CHB

[Seth]

How on earth did this become a thread about women in the ministry?  :laughing7:

:offtopic:

[CHB]

Sorry, I was trying to show what Paul meant about women not ruling over the man. Also how women did teach the man on several ocassions.

CHB

One other thing. I believe it was planned by God for the woman to be decieved and sin first. In (1Tim. 2:15) it says, "she shall be saved in childbearing". Of course we are saved through childbearing because Mary took care of that when she gave birth to Jesus. if none of this had happened we wouldn't have a saviour.

Sorry if I caused any confusion. :sigh:
CHB

[Seth]

I mean that it all good humor. Just confused about where this has gone. Don't mind me, carry on...  :winkgrin:

[Patinak]

I see it as one gospel, applied to two distinct groups. Two aspects of one gospel bringing all into one new man. Paul and Peter were definitely the two primary messengers, Peter to the circumscision applying the one gospel and Paul to the uncircumscision applying the one gospel.

:iagree:

That I get. Of course, it's the Bible. It can have multiple levels.

:thumbsup:

As far as the gender separation thing, I think that if we were there, we would understand what was going on, and why the statements are made, we just don't have all the clues, so we make a lot of assumptions. 

For example, when Paul is writing to Timothy about what seems belittling of women, if we were in the middle of the situation it might make perfect sense.  Remember, Paul is writing to Timothy in Ephesus, where the temple of Artemis (Diana) was.  Paul's job was to bring the gospel to these people, and to dispel the mythology.  I think that since the goddess Artemis was so powerful, not only in the mythology, but also the economy, that there must have been women infiltrating Timothy's church that would try to integrate their customs and traditions regarding Artemis. This kind of thing seems to really upset Paul (just like the Jews trying to make the Galatians get circumcised) and I'm sure it's because it hampers him from doing his job. Remember, Paul even caused a riot of the silversmith's because of what he was doing.  I don't think Paul is talking to Timothy about women in general, just like he wasn't talking about Jews in general in Galatians.
We know that God does not prefer one gender over another, one race over another, he is no respecter of people, this is the kind of thinking that ETers use for 'exclusionary salvation' (my own term :laugh:)

Anyway, I think anytime we question the word of truth in these kind of hard to understand things, we should do what a wise man once told me:

I truly believe that as you struggle and pray through this, if you adopt the mindset that embraces the totality of what you see as contradiction, instead of embracing only the one in favor of the other, your journey will be one of discussion, and discovery.

Ronen

Sorry Seth, I already had this written, and besides I think this all still pertains to the original question. :Peace2:

Late for work,
Pat

[CST]

Yes  :thumbsup:. And I really feel that if we are all loving eachother the way we are told to do so, the issue of authority and power really shouldn't be an issue inside or outside marriage. Who cares who has the authority, until some people start craving it? It only becomes an issue when we start thinking about ourselves. If both people are putting the other person above themselves, when is power an issue?

I think one of the reasons these scriptures are so controversial is because we rarely see the love we are meant to demonstrate actually happening in the world, so it's hard to imagine how Paul's recommendation in relationships and the church works without the awesome self-lowering love that supposed to go with it. The best people to have authority, imo, are the ones who don't think they should have it, or worry about it (like Moses "I'm not a good speaker" or Jonah etc), not ones who crave it for their own sakes.

These are wonderful statement of principle and true in that regard. Of course, in regard to practise someone (like Paul) needs to take charge or nothing would ever get done. Hence where the closing point comes in. Obviously love triumphs over authority. Properly understood love will always get people to do right. I guess that means most authorities don't have that much love in them.

[eaglesway]

Of course we are saved through childbearing because Mary took care of that when she gave birth to Jesus. if none of this had happened we wouldn't have a saviour.

CHB

Awesome insight!!!

[CST]

The reason for the translations that say "fell into transgression" is because the greek says "gynē exapatētheisa en parabasei gonen" or "the woman into transgression has come." So, the meaning would be more like "having been deceived, the woman came into transgression." The major point Paul would be making is that the woman fell into transgression through deception, not that Adam NEVER sinned. I could see why the KJV rendering would cause confusion, but I think the later translations attempt to rectify that.

Also the definite article can refer to a specific transgression they both fell under. "The transgression" = disobedience. So Eve fell into the transgression through deception, while Adam tell into the transgression by other means.

Yes, and a lot of the translations express it like that some, but not all, adding the word 'fell' because the incident described has poetically named 'the fall of man', even though it is woman here described. It doesn't change anything I'm arguing which is that it seems to read being deceived = sinning and only - it to the woman. I'm also not actually convinced that I can really buy that Adam was not deceived and the woman was and that was how the sin came about. But let's remember how that actually came about. This was the instruction God gave to Adam:

"but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die." (Gen. 2:17)

Now what the serpent said, the 'deception':

"But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."" (Gen. 3:4-5)

And what the woman actually did:

"So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, and he ate." (Gen. 3:6)

And finally the conclusion:

"Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever"--" (Gen 3:22)

Now the text tells us the following things that God told Adam (and we can only know for sure He told Adam) that eating the fruit of the tree would bring death and that the woman had some how learned this warning. The serpent tells the woman two things that it would not bring death and it would make her like God. We know from the last passage that the second part was true, it catch seems to be that humans, unlike God are unable to possess this knowledge without being compromised. Thus resulting in death. There are numerous ways the first part of the statement can be argued to diminish the falsehood therein too. But Adam was told specifically that if he ate the fruit of that tree he would die. If Adam believed that and was in no way deceived, it would suggest would, it not that, he ate from the tree expecting his own death to be the consequence? Why would he do that? I can't see why he would if the concept of death was meaningful to him.

It also says that the woman lusted after the 'wisdom' the tree could provide. That seems to be her sin as presented in the text, not actually being 'deceived'.

Paul was pretty clear that there transgression on both sides in the full scope of his writing. As to the importance of deception, I don't know. We'd have to ask him. Paul does attribute death coming into the world through Adam though, not Eve, so I think Adam doesn't come away very clean in the whole deal though.

But he seems to come through somewhat cleaner in this epistle. The fact the death came through Adam and thus presumably could only have come through Adam may well be very important here. I don't understand the importance of the deception either. As illustrated above perhaps understanding exactly what the nature of the deception was would help.

Again, it doesn't say that Adam never sinned. It just says that Eve sinned through deception. If there were no other books of the Bible, I would have to say I don't know, rather than just asserting that he never sinned based on lack of information of whether he did or not.

And you're making my point for me. I have other books of the Bible. I know they say that Adam sinned but whenever I read this passage, despite knowing that I still struggle to read it in any other sense than Paul saying he didn't. But of he was writing to Timothy who would already have had a spectacular understanding of the background Paul was speaking to. I just wish I could work out for sure what that background was. Everything would be a guess or sort.

That's because the Father chose the Son, not them.

That seems to suggest that the angels are as equal with God as the Son is. We know they are not. Only the Son was fit for this job because of His special position and status. God created the angels while He was creating the world He knew He was planning to save, He didn't create the Son. As far as I understand the Angels are created as much through the Son as we are.

I think Jesus is providing enough context within his own statement to determine his meaning. The point being, in some ways we should be like children, and in other ways, not.

And you said it was 'humility' I don't think it was that clear. Obviously it was an analogy and can only be pushed so far it clear that in some ways we should not be like children, but I'm not sure you can tell from context all the ways Jesus is saying we should be. The greatest is God and will always be God. In actuality surely the 'greatest' beneath that will be those with qualities closest to God, so we are looking for the qualities in children we would most think that they might share with God, wouldn't we?

I don't see them having authority just because of that. I'm not saying whether or not women should or should not have authority. But you made the positive statement that Jesus gave authority to women over men, and I don't see the evidence for that.

I see authority as being a necessity because anyone delivering the Gospel message is basically trying to get people to 'repent, turn, change.' There's an intrinsic imperative there. Obviously you ultimately want them to give their attention and hand authority to Jesus. But when you're evangelizing (either Gospel ;)) you asking temporaliy for them to give attention and authority to you so they accept the weight of your message.

So when, for example the woman from Samaria meets Jesus and except Him as the Messiah and then goes and tells the rest of Samaria that too and the act on what she says out of any sort of interest she, at least temporarily, has an authority over all those people, including the men. Then, of course, it goes to Jesus as it should.

A lot of women are involved in the story of Jesus many of whom benefited from His works. I don't think we're expected to believe all they did afterwards was reap the benefits without ever proclaiming what Jesus did that isn't what we're taught.

Regarding Eve, it could be that Paul is not saying that women are easily deceived. That would be odd since they can prophecy and be in charge of very important tasks in the church. But, maybe Paul is paying attention to the order of things. Eve sinned first and was deceived by the serpent. Adam sinned second and was not deceived. Christ is second as well (second Adam) and also was not deceived, though he did not sin.

It could be that Paul wants to preserve the parallels to Christ and Adam as reflected in church culture. This is just a guess. Again, it would be odd to think that women can be more easily deceived since they were given power to prophecy and go give very important news of Christ etc.

Indeed, again it may well depend on exactly how Woman was deceived and Adam supposedly wasn't, as I said above.

I am getting the impression, although nothing is stated outright, that there is some critique about, either the authenticity or reliability of the letter to Timothy based on how Paul brings up Eve's sin and seems to say that Adam did not sin.

I am not sure if that is the general idea here, but my whole point is not to get into a debate about women in the ministry. My point is to say that Paul, in the letter to Timothy, is not contradicting his other writings where he confirms that Adam sinned. The letter to Timothy does not say "Adam did not sin."

Again, I am getting lost as to what any of this has to do with the two-evangel theory.  :dontknow:

Which seems to say that a lot of other, more knowledgeable people than me read this passage the way I do. I don't think it's really a cause to doubt that Paul actually wrote the letter. People try to do that with several of Paul's letters but several factors could explain how he wrote including his audience, the subjects being addressed developments in his writing style over time, his circumstances when he wrote them. My point isn't that Paul didn't write the letter it's that we can no longer be sure of how he's using what he's saying, how God intends for us to understand what He is saying, and is Paul is applying some sort of Pharisaical interpretation of Genesis that he might abandon if he gave it more thought.

Why does this pertain to the two evangels? Perceived discrepancies in how Paul argues things could be used to argue in favour of such a state if not nipped in the bud.