SILENT WOMEN

[other one]

Just a reminder that we are going to judge the angels.....      depending on when God made that decision, I would think that he really intended for Adam and Eve to eat of the fruit to gain the knowledge of good and evil, or else how could we possibly judge the angels.

 

and it's poetic justice that the devil himself talked them into it....

[enoob57]

It is a very dangerous reasoning to make evil necessary for anything... especially since there is

and eternity without it! Love, Steven

[Qnts2]

Just a reminder that we are going to judge the angels.....      depending on when God made that decision, I would think that he really intended for Adam and Eve to eat of the fruit to gain the knowledge of good and evil, or else how could we possibly judge the angels.

 

and it's poetic justice that the devil himself talked them into it....

 

Just somethings to consider.

 

Before Adam and Eve ate the fruit, they were both innocent and all they had experienced or knew, was what God gave to them to know. They had only experienced good.

 

We know that eating the fruit had very bad results which has had human wide, and world wide (plants, animals, weather, etc) results. Taking a bite was a catastrophic event for everything and all.  

 

Genesis 3:4The serpent said to the woman, “You surely will not die! ⁵ For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

 

The serpent said to Eve, you will be like God, knowing good and evil. Gods know good and evil, and actually, God defines what is good and evil.

 

Genesis 3:6  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 desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate;

 

Now I ask, was the tree really good for food? God said not to eat. If God said it was not good to eat, was it really good for food? Eve was deciding good and evil apart from God. She decided the fruit was good for food, but God said it wasn't food to eat.

 

Eve did become like God, but not good like God. Eve was deciding for herself what was good and what was evil, rather then accepting what God defined as good and evil. The knowledge of good and evil was not God's definition and knowing. People have been defining what is good and what is evil apart from God ever since that time. People have been their own gods.

 

So, people did not need to eat the fruit to judge the angels. Actually the eating of the fruit caused mankinds judgement of good and evil to be corrupted, no longer accepting God's definition of good and evil as He designed things. To actually be able to judge good and evil in truth, we need to have the mind of God.  

[Sevenseas]

 

I don't suppose anything.  I prefer not to imagine scenarios as scripture tells us not to do that actually.

 

Did you find something wrong in what I responded with?

 

And Eve sinned.  I said she did...that is obvious.

 

There are no possibilities with regards to Eve deceiving Adam.  The serpent deceived Eve.  Eve was not the serpent.

 

I guess that is a lesson for anyone who wants to claim ignorance when they sin....that is, when a person hears the truth, knows the truth and then proceeds anyway.

 

I think problems occur when someone wants to peak behind the curtain that has already been raised on the scene

Eve eyes was open first thus she knew evil and what she had done thus giving Adam the fruit with knowledge of what would be the result thus she deceived Adam 

 

 

 

Well, you have to ignore what the Bible says to come to this conclusion justfaith.  

 

But I guess if that is how you see it......

[enoob57]

I don't suppose anything.  I prefer not to imagine scenarios as scripture tells us not to do that actually.

 

Did you find something wrong in what I responded with?

 

And Eve sinned.  I said she did...that is obvious.

 

There are no possibilities with regards to Eve deceiving Adam.  The serpent deceived Eve.  Eve was not the serpent.

 

I guess that is a lesson for anyone who wants to claim ignorance when they sin....that is, when a person hears the truth, knows the truth and then proceeds anyway.

 

I think problems occur when someone wants to peak behind the curtain that has already been raised on the scene

Eve eyes was open first thus she knew evil and what she had done thus giving Adam the fruit with knowledge of what would be the result thus she deceived Adam

This statement is contrary to what God specifically states through Paul's writing-

1 Tim 2:14

14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

KJV

Love, Steven

[justfaith]

Eve knew not to eat from that tree.  Lets suppose Adam told her not to touch the tree.  So what?  That isn't going to cause her to be deceived.  The deception was from the serpent, in that he told her she would not surely die.  That wasn't even a lie.  She didn't fall down dead immediately, but she did eventually die. 

 

As for Adam, he was not deceived into believing it was ok to eat the forbidden fruit.  There are two possibilities.  Either Eve saw that she didn't immediately die, and she brought the fruit to Adam and he ate, not knowing where it came from, or he saw she had eaten it and now had the advantage of knowing good and evil, and he wanted the same knowledge so he ate.  That would be outright rebellion, but not a deception.  The woman did know better.  She was taught properly. 

 

Lets look at this example.  Lets say I have a small child, and I know there is a danger in him playing in the road, so I tell him not to play in the road, lest he be run over, but I add one thing to this.  I tell him not to play in the road, and not to even get near the road.  He knows not to go in the road, lest he could get run over, and I added that extra thing about not going near the road for his added safety.  Eve thinking it was wrong to touch the tree didn't mean she was misinformed. 

Did Eve know evil before Adam ?

[justfaith]

 

 

I don't suppose anything.  I prefer not to imagine scenarios as scripture tells us not to do that actually.

 

Did you find something wrong in what I responded with?

 

And Eve sinned.  I said she did...that is obvious.

 

There are no possibilities with regards to Eve deceiving Adam.  The serpent deceived Eve.  Eve was not the serpent.

 

I guess that is a lesson for anyone who wants to claim ignorance when they sin....that is, when a person hears the truth, knows the truth and then proceeds anyway.

 

I think problems occur when someone wants to peak behind the curtain that has already been raised on the scene

Eve eyes was open first thus she knew evil and what she had done thus giving Adam the fruit with knowledge of what would be the result thus she deceived Adam

 

This statement is contrary to what God specifically states through Paul's writing-

1 Tim 2:14

14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

KJV

Love, Steven

 

Adam was not decieved by the devil 

 

Did Eve know evil before Adam ?

[Marilyn C]

Hi inchrist,

 

Have appreciated what you have been saying.

 

Hi other one,

 

You said -

`Just a reminder that we are going to judge the angels..... depending on when God made that decision, I would think that he really intended for Adam and Eve to eat of the fruit to gain the knowledge of good and evil, or else how could we possibly judge the angels.`

 

It is through Christ, having His divine nature formed in us, & He being the Head of the Body, that enables us to `judge angels` & the `world system,` during the last 7 years of the Gentile rule. You don`t have to `sin,` to know good & evil. Christ never sinned & knows full well what evil is. Partaking of the fruit of that tree gave Adam & Eve an experience of evil in their lives, (intimate knowing) but they didn`t have to eat to know that there was good & evil - `good,` eat what God says, `evil,` partake of what God says not too.

 

 

To all,

 

Where does it say in God`s word that the Body of Christ has to be controlled by man in organisations, & also run by people calling themselves `pastors?` 

[Guest Butero]

I want to post this response to clear up a possible misunderstanding and to deal with a couple of things I have read.  First to Sevenseas.  Though my post came directly after yours, my response was mostly directed towards my disagreement with InChrist.  It wasn't a response to anything you said.  As far as the issue of Eve saying they weren't to touch the tree goes, no I don't think there was any harm in adding to the command not to eat of the fruit in order to avoid falling into sin, and no, I don't accept that this in any way, shape or form led to Eve falling into temptation.  In addition to that, it is entirely possible that God did tell them not to touch the tree, and it wasn't recorded.  Every minute detail isn't always recorded, so I am not even sure what Eve said was untrue. 

 

As far as that list of women goes, there is nothing in scripture that states any of them were Pastors.  We know that a husband and wife had a church in their home, but that doesn't mean the wife was a Pastor.  In another instance, I am not sure one of the people was a woman, but I will go back and look that name up when I have time.  I know there is one person some claim was a woman to defend women pastors, but nobody is sure.  Again, I don't see a problem with women Pastors, so long as they aren't running the church as a Bishop does, as women cannot be the husband of one wife. 

[Qnts2]

I want to post this response to clear up a possible misunderstanding and to deal with a couple of things I have read.  First to Sevenseas.  Though my post came directly after yours, my response was mostly directed towards my disagreement with InChrist.  It wasn't a response to anything you said.  As far as the issue of Eve saying they weren't to touch the tree goes, no I don't think there was any harm in adding to the command not to eat of the fruit in order to avoid falling into sin, and no, I don't accept that this in any way, shape or form led to Eve falling into temptation.  In addition to that, it is entirely possible that God did tell them not to touch the tree, and it wasn't recorded.  Every minute detail isn't always recorded, so I am not even sure what Eve said was untrue. 

 

As far as that list of women goes, there is nothing in scripture that states any of them were Pastors.  We know that a husband and wife had a church in their home, but that doesn't mean the wife was a Pastor.  In another instance, I am not sure one of the people was a woman, but I will go back and look that name up when I have time.  I know there is one person some claim was a woman to defend women pastors, but nobody is sure.  Again, I don't see a problem with women Pastors, so long as they aren't running the church as a Bishop does, as women cannot be the husband of one wife. 

 

One of the complaints made by Jesus against the Pharisees was that they added to the Mosaic law. The main reason the Pharisees added to the law, called the fence around the law, was to ensure the people did not accidently break the law.

 

For example, in the Mosaic law there were times when leavened food was not to be eaten (Passover). Certain grains will expand when cooked which would be forbidden during Passover. Other grains look like the forbidden grains, so to make sure the children of Israel did not accidently eat what was forbidden, mistaking it for a grain which was not forbidden during Passover, the Rabbis set a community tradition, not to eat the look-alike grain which is not forbidden by the law, during Passover. The term for these look alikes is, kitnyot.

 

We know that God said not to eat the forbidden fruit. If a person does not even touch it, then there is no chance to eat it. I believe that God wrote scripture and did not make any mistakes. If God had said not to touch, that would have been important to the story and God would have communicated that He said not to eat or touch. Therefore, taking those verses literally and accepting God inspired scripture would not be missing anything important to the story, God never said not to touch. Therefore, not touching was a 'fence around the law'.  

 

Looking at scripture, and the ways things work with people, it is a tendancy of people who believe they have laws from God they must obey, to expand the laws.

 

I once asked a group of Christians, if they felt that God asked them to pray everyday for the next 3 weeks, at 2:00 pm until 2:30, would they do it? Everyone said yes.

 

I then asked if they might start 5 minutes early, at 1:55, in case their watches were off and not to iss the 2 pm start time, would they do that? They all said yes.

 

I then asked if they might pray until 2:35 pm, just to make sure they were following exactly what God said? They all said yes.

 

I then asked, what if God meant Israel time, would they pray a second time at 2 pm to 2:30 pm, Israel time? Some said yes, but not all.

 

These people sincerely wanted to obey God. They did not want to miss in their obedience. But, in their sincere desire to be obedient, they were more then willing to put a fence around the original command.