Both are equal in the image of God.
Genesis 1
27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
The Effect of Eve's Sin on Women
- Thread starter ValleyAnt
- 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.
Both are equal in the image of God.
Genesis 1
27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
1CR 11:1-16 is a problematic passage, coming as it does after Paul just finished instructing folks not to judge or make a bone of contention about secondary issues such as eating and drinking, something he also taught in RM 14. Thus, it seems odd that he would make such a big deal about hair length. And his rationale saying only males are in the image of God does not jibe with GN 1:27. I can only think Paul must have been having a bad hair day!
While it's true that being made in the image of God does not make man into God, the above loudly implies a lower status for women than men.
The above is nothing but religious-sounding misogyny.
Eve did not go "off-reservation"; she was deceived. Eve was never charged with sin in the Bible (not saying she was sinless, just that this initial momentous act is never called sin). It's that simple, and there is no need to reinterpret those words or imply that they apply to every female (as so many "religious" misogynists do). Women are no more sinful than men.
Ol, you know what i mean, Phebe, Chloe , how about Mary( not the mother of Jesus)synthece and Euodia( Philippians ch 4 vs 2-3
I believe that , if Paul use these women and more to spread the "gospel", Paul believed that these women played an important role in his Ministry.So in conclusion, someone must of taught them right! Like Lydia in Philippi . Which says Z"God opened her heart to hear the things of "Paul", what things?THE GOSPEL .So someone taught Lydia, and it was the (man) PaulI have no argument with you.
So women are so important in our lives. I mean it was a woman, that gave us "Jesus"
“You feel what you feel, but your assessment is completely incorrect. I am disagreeing with you because I am confident that your position is wrong and warrants refutation.”
your trying to refute scripture lol
“We disagree. You have no good evidence for your interpretation other than your interpretation of Genesis 3:16, which makes your reasoning circular and therefore fallacious.”
This is fallacious ?
“Unto the woman he said, 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. And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;”
Genesis 3:16-17 KJV
Which part of those scriptures isn’t true ?
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.”
1 Timothy 2:12-15 KJV
Why aren’t those ones true ?
“Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.”
1 Corinthians 14:34-37 KJV
why does the apostle Paul continually teach this “ fallacious “ thing ?
Do you think it’s possible you are wrong and the scripture is actually clear and repetetive ? You should consider you own ability to be absolutely wrong and also possibly might want to look into what the term “ humility “ means biblically . You seem very proud.
“Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.”
1 Corinthians 11:1, 3-10
Paul taught this stuff anyone who says he didn’t has the issue I’m okay with accepting and learning from the scriptures . I certainly don’t go on rampages against what it says and argue with people who accept it.
But I really dont have the time to waste arguing for the sake of it with you. That’s not why I come here for the past three years. It’s to reconcile things like the above that pul taught , The law taught ect
with what’s been done for both men and women in Christ. When you get to the born again part
“For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.”
Galatians 3:26-29 KJV
You’re missing the forest because you’re trying to chop down a tree with a wooden axe. Smokey bear says “ pour the cold water on the fire before you leave the campground it spreads “
.
● Col 1:15 . . He is the firstborn over all creation.
FAQ: How is Christ in the position of the supreme firstborn when so many of
his ancestors came before him? Shouldn't he be their junior and they his
seniors?
REPLY: Jesus would normally be pretty low on the primogeniture totem pole
were it not that the position of the firstborn isn't set in concrete, rather, it's
possible to circumvent the eldest and give his seniority to a junior, for example:
Ishmael to Isaac (Gen 20:11-12) Esau to Jacob (Gen 25:23) Reuben to
Joseph (Gen 49:3-4, 1Chr 5:1) and Manasseh to Ephraim (Gen 48:13-14)
FAQ: Supposing a man's daughter is his eldest child. Wouldn't that eo ipso
make her his firstborn?
REPLY: The top position of the Bible's primogeniture hierarchy is restricted to
males. For example let's say a man produces five daughters before finally
producing a son. The boy's five big sisters will be his juniors and he the
senior of his father's six offspring regardless of how much older than the lad
his five sisters might be.
NOTE: The position of the firstborn isn't limited to family circles. For example
Jacob's people are God's firstborn among the nations (Ex 4:22) and David is
God's firstborn among the world's heads of state (Ps 89:20-27)
_
● Col 1:15 . . He is the firstborn over all creation.
FAQ: How is Christ in the position of the supreme firstborn when so many of
his ancestors came before him? Shouldn't he be their junior and they his
seniors?
REPLY: Jesus would normally be pretty low on the primogeniture totem pole
were it not that the position of the firstborn isn't set in concrete, rather, it's
possible to circumvent the eldest and give his seniority to a junior, for example:
Ishmael to Isaac (Gen 20:11-12) Esau to Jacob (Gen 25:23) Reuben to
Joseph (Gen 49:3-4, 1Chr 5:1) and Manasseh to Ephraim (Gen 48:13-14)
FAQ: Supposing a man's daughter is his eldest child. Wouldn't that eo ipso
make her his firstborn?
REPLY: The top position of the Bible's primogeniture hierarchy is restricted to
males. For example let's say a man produces five daughters before finally
producing a son. The boy's five big sisters will be his juniors and he the
senior of his father's six offspring regardless of how much older than the lad
his five sisters might be.
NOTE: The position of the firstborn isn't limited to family circles. For example
Jacob's people are God's firstborn among the nations (Ex 4:22) and David is
God's firstborn among the world's heads of state (Ps 89:20-27)
_
Correct. I was thinking of 'the religious spirit' just yesterday along with 'the Pharisee spirit' (I use these distinctions only because they're distinct; it's not necessarily the correct terms). After responding to comments, I'll be writing a post about the religious and Pharisee spirits. The former rejects God in practice and the latter persecutes Him whenever it can. In my opinion, it's very important to distinguish between the two.
So, were you in the other comment referring to Abel's biological bloodline or to his spiritual bloodline? You wrote about the spiritual (ie. spiritual Cains persecute spiritual Abels) in the comment above but I also wonder about the biological as the spiritual, good and bad, travels down biological (generational) lines as well.
Yep. I'll check out that link.
Also, I was speaking spiritually in distinguishing 'command' and 'commandment' (as I will be distinguishing the 'religious spirit' from the 'Pharisee spirit'). The distinction isn't necessary in the words themselves but in what the words are communicating. So, the words themselves aren't different.
You aren't paying attention to what I'm saying. Instead, you are yelling, repeating yourself, and completely misrepresenting my position. There's no point in trying to communicate with you when you refuse to 'listen'.
Ok sounds good we agree there’s no point in continuing this Grace and peace to you
God set a blessing and curse before us and we cursed ourselves and all the earth breaking his covenant
“Behold, I set before you this day a blessing and a curse; a blessing, if ye obey the commandments of the LORD your God, which I command you this day: and a curse, if ye will not obey the commandments of the LORD your God, but turn aside out of the way which I command you this day, to go after other gods, which ye have not known.”
Deuteronomy 11:26-28
“I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:”
Deuteronomy 30:19 KJV
“And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: ( life )
but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”( death )
Genesis 2:16-17
“The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant. Therefore hath the curse devoured the earth, and they that dwell therein are desolate: therefore the inhabitants of the earth are burned, and few men left.”
Isaiah 24:5-6 KJV
Christ saves people who believe from that curse we caused by the choice presented by the commandment by dying for thier sins under the law freeing them from it
“Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:”
Galatians 3:13
I wasn's speaking about the literal words; we need words to communicate, but "most communication is non-verbal" (or most communication can't be vocalized) because we have two immaterial parts (spirit and soul) and only one material part (body); therefore, naturally, most of our communication will be physically/vocally incommunicable. I was speaking spiritually. A command and commandment are the same and also different, distinctly different.
If you read books or articles about 'generational curses' and 'family curses', you'll find that the authors will define both those things as one thing. But if you happen to ask God if there is a distinction between the two, you will find that there is. On earth when we say those two phrases, we lump them together as the same thing. But in the spirit realm (ie. the realm where they see things as they in fact are and not how we might think they are (eg. "Jesus I know, and Paul I know, but who are you?")), those two things are two totally different things. They're two entirely different dynamics. We can use them to mean the same thing (ie. 'curses/sinful inclinations that passively pass down from generation to generation'), but they're not the same thing.
In English, we have only one word for snow. But the Inuit tribe(s) have at least 53 words for snow... because there are different types of snow. In English, we have only one word for 'love'. In Greek, we know of four words for love (agapao, storge, phileo, eros)... but there are far more than four different types of love (eg. the love you have for food is different/distinct from the love you have for nature, but both types of love aren't distinguished by words in English or Greek), therefore, one can legitimately make more words to fit each different type of love. The Bible doesn't talk about everything or spell everything out; but you can find and learn about everything in it through the tutorship of the Holy Spirit.
If someone's boss or a military officer gave an order, it can correctly be called a command. It would not be called a commandment. But the rules for that company (company where you work or military company, also two different things) can correctly be called commandments but not commands. You don't have to make [fine] distinctions if you don't want to. But it's important that I do. I don't limit myself to human language. Such limitations prevented Israel's religious leaders from recognizing, approving, acknowledging, and accepting Jesus and any truth outside their limited views (mindsets) and comfort (way of life).
Actually, I don't think the difference is sublime or spiritual at all. We don't use the word commandment these days, so it sounds religious to us because the only place we really read it is in the bible. We use the word command for verbal orders and law, rule, regulation, etc for written ones. Nobody uses the word commandment except in reference to the bible, so basically it's an obsolete word.
Look for my post I will call 'Benefits of Purity of Heart' later tonight where I will again allude to the distinction between command and commandment. It is not the words I am distinguishing; it is the meaning of the words. The words are all we have, but words are limiting and restricting when talking about spiritual things. Those two words mean different things in our human dictionary; but in the spirit they are often used to explain two very distinct things.