OKAY. This might get me some trouble, but being a man I've always read it that women are different than men. in this case, in that Eve was deceived and Adam wasn't. As shown by this there is a quality in all women that makes them not fit to have authority over men in Church. It also says that Adam was formed first. Don't abandon or disregard proper teachings. Paul was an Apostle and is affirmed through Peter in writing in the New Testament, there is no Biblical reason to disregard what he has to say.
Women Pastors
- Thread starter Stan_the_Man
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
- Status
OKAY. This might get me some trouble, but being a man I've always read it that women are different than men. in this case, in that Eve was deceived and Adam wasn't. As shown by this there is a quality in all women that makes them not fit to have authority over men in Church. It also says that Adam was formed first. Don't abandon or disregard proper teachings. Paul was an Apostle and is affirmed through Peter in writing in the New Testament, there is no Biblical reason to disregard what he has to say.
Women are indeed different from men, in every cell of their bodies. However, you won't find "leadership" in either gender's cells.
That isn't what the text says. What the text says is Eve was deceived... and nothing whatsoever is said or implied that all women or any other women are susceptible to deceit or have any other quality that makes the unfit to have authority. See my comments to Wolfwint regarding authentein.
We don't even know how Eve learned she should not eat of the Tree. Adam might not have been clear or thorough enough. But the Bible shows us Adam was there when Eve was being deceived. If he's the head of this marriage and held most responsible, why did he allow Eve to be deceived?
So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.
Paul is just throwing Eve under the bus here when Adam was there and could have stopped it. And this is the qualification Paul used for why Women cannot preach. Paul sounds more like a Pharisee in this portion of scripture than anywhere else.
I think it's implied in the text that because Eve was deceived women are unfit to have authority over men in Church.
How is he throwing Eve under the bus? He was just saying that Adam was not deceived but Eve was. If that's what happened that's what happened. Paul was an Apostle, if this is his reasoning I'm sure it's sound. AGAIN I might get into trouble for this, but it makes sense to me!
2 sides here.
Which is worse, being deceived, or not being deceived and just basically saying to God I could care less about Your Command?
He's saying being deceived is worse than telling God and His Command to go take a hike.
Haven't we all believed a lie once in our lifetime. So we've all been deceived?
Paul believed a lie and murdered hundreds/possibly thousands of Christians. He was deceived more than most of us.
We disagree on that, and surely mere implication can't be the basis for doctrine and practice.
It doesn't really matter which is worse, because that's not the issue here.
Not really. He just wrote that Eve was deceived but not Adam. That's his reasoning, other than Adam being formed first.
That's what my original post is saying. Paul used Eve being deceived to disqualify ALL WOMEN from being a preacher.
And he did this while "ignoring" the obvious about what Adam did.
Animals, birds, fish and insects were formed before Adam. Does that mean these should have authority over all humans? No. Paul was not saying that because Adam was formed first, men are fit to have authority and women aren't.
I don't know how you couldn't see that implication.
1 Timothy 2:11-14 (KJV)
11Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
May I encourage you to look further into the cultural context. Yours is a dangerous conclusion, and there is a better one.
It's not that I don't "see" the implication, but having done my homework (extensively) on this subject, I "know" that is not what Paul is saying.
I changed the post and removed that so I can re-examine it.May I encourage you to look further into the cultural context. "Paul is wrong" is a dangerous conclusion, and there is a better one.
And I also believe culture played an important role here.
Women were still considered property. Basically a slave. That would immediately disqualify them.
Well that was his reasoning. Preaching would be teaching in a sense, so yes, I suppose he would be saying that a woman should not be doing that in church and part of his reasoning is that Eve was deceived and not Adam. I don't know how he was ignoring anything Adam did.
Culture is indeed important. In the Greek/Roman context, women had a much higher social status than in many pagan cultures.
Does the original Greek say something different than the KJV? I don't know how much more research would be needed, but the KJV seems pretty clear.
I would presume that you have some understanding of the Jewish culture around 60's AD, roughly 30 years after the DBR and Ascension of Jesus. The Gospels allude to it when they say 4,000/5,000 men but never including women and children (property). When Paul wrote this, women were still property of their husbands. And as already mentioned, many foreign women were leaders and some were priestesses in their pagan rituals. I think Paul is using Genesis 3 as an easy way to kill multiple birds with one stone, sort of theory.
No offense, but I think you're bringing your own presuppositions this.
- Status