SILENT WOMEN

[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

 

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

 

 

 

Thanks Steven

 

I have pointed that out a couple of times now

 

It seems scripture is being ignored as the poster has a uncomplimentary dispostion towards women saying anything in church

 

Things get complicated after that and it appears that Eve is responsible for all the evil in the world

 

and by default, women in genera it would appear

 

Facts have a hard time in a situation like that

[Sevenseas]

 

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?` 

 

 

 

There is a structural emphasis in the early church in the NT, but nothing like what we have today

 

I think we would agree that too many people look to their 'pastor' and not to their Savior when it comes to direction...and that type of pastor often

would not have it any other way

 

I think we might also agree that control is not one of the gifts operating through the Holy Spirit

 

However, there are plenty of false and hirling teachers and preachers as well as general chaos and misuse of the gifts etc recorded in the NT

that I get the idea that it has always been a bit of a mine field

 

We are warned of deception over and over and over....having been badly deceived at a young age, well actually it was my mother who dragged the entire

family into it, I take the warnings very seriously

 

 

I do understand what you are asking and agree in principal

[enoob57]

It is a distinction in hermeneutics that the Word of God be as that and all we like sheep are to

press toward the understanding of the truth formed from that Word... no matter the discomfort that

will come from that pursuit!

      As to the one point did Eve know evil when she gave the fruit to Adam:

The Lord teaches us that the instant of sin fellowship is broken-

2 Cor 6:14

14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath

righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

KJV

Eph 5:11-13

11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove

them. 12 For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in

secret. 13 But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for

whatsoever doth make manifest is light.

KJV

1 John 1:6-7

6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do

not the truth: 7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have

fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us

from all sin.

KJV

By this instruction alone we know that there was an instantaneous break in their

(Adam and Eve) relationship... thus the woman being deceived desired that which

was lost in relationship back, as well as, the man desired to regain it back as

well >BUT< Adam did it fully aware of his disobedience unto God to do so...

Love, Steven

Edited October 24, 2014 by enoob57

[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

 

 

Thanks Steven

 

I have pointed that out a couple of times now

 

It seems scripture is being ignored as the poster has a uncomplimentary dispostion towards women saying anything in church

 

Things get complicated after that and it appears that Eve is responsible for all the evil in the world

 

and by default, women in genera it would appear

 

Facts have a hard time in a situation like that

And yet all of mankind through the pain of the woman are... The justice of God is complete! Love, Steven

[Guest Butero]

There is a lot more to the problems with the Pharisees than adding to the law of Moses to make it harder to break the law.  That is small in comparison to the greater wrongs they were guilty of, like intentionally perverting the law if it suited them so they could break it.  An example is when Jesus mentioned how they created a loophole so they could break the commandment to honor Father and Mother and appear guiltless.  They had also expanded the reasons to divorce to include anything.  I will say this Qnts.  I do at least find you more reasonable in what you are saying than some, in that at least you acknowledge the logic behind expanding certain laws, the reason for it, and how if you fully follow the expanded law, you cannot break the actual law.  It won't make you more likely to violate it.  I can acknowledge what you said about the Pharisees, but there is a bigger thing going on than just protecting people by expanding the law. 

 

Lets say that a minister gets up and tells the congregation they shouldn't drink alcohol at all, because if they never touch it, they won't become a drunkard.  God never says they can never drink alcohol, but just that they aren't to drink in excess.  If the person follows that teaching, they won't be more likely to become a drunkard, but less likely.  If the minister doesn't go so far as to tell them they will go to hell if they ever touch a drop of alcohol, his teaching is harmless.  The Pharisees didn't do that.  They condemned the disciples for not following their expanded teaching on things like keeping the Sabbath.  Their own practice that wouldn't allow them to even pluck corn on the Sabbath didn't harm anyone.  The problem was when they became condemning.  So lets look at Adam and Eve again.  Lets suppose that God only told Adam not to eat of the fruit, but didn't say anything about not touching the tree, but Adam, trying to prevent Eve from getting in trouble, told her not to touch the tree.  That doesn't make her more likely to fall, but less likely if she believed it strongly enough. 

 

I still believe it is possible that God did advise Adam not to touch the tree, though I would never teach that as a fact, because I can't verify it.  I don't consider that kind of detail important for us, because we aren't the ones having to obey the commandment.  It would only be important to Adam and Eve.  If it were a commandment for us today not to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and not to even touch it, I would agree with you that it would have to be included in the Biblical text.  Since that is not something we have to deal with, it is not important.  It is a very minor detail.  It only becomes important when someone tries to make an illogical point by saying her having that extra-Biblical command caused her to fall, which is utter nonsense.  Whether you agree with me or not on the importance of this detail, I am glad that you are at least using logic in your position. 

[Qnts2]

There is a lot more to the problems with the Pharisees than adding to the law of Moses to make it harder to break the law.  That is small in comparison to the greater wrongs they were guilty of, like intentionally perverting the law if it suited them so they could break it.  An example is when Jesus mentioned how they created a loophole so they could break the commandment to honor Father and Mother and appear guiltless.  They had also expanded the reasons to divorce to include anything.  I will say this Qnts.  I do at least find you more reasonable in what you are saying than some, in that at least you acknowledge the logic behind expanding certain laws, the reason for it, and how if you fully follow the expanded law, you cannot break the actual law.  It won't make you more likely to violate it.  I can acknowledge what you said about the Pharisees, but there is a bigger thing going on than just protecting people by expanding the law. 

 

Lets say that a minister gets up and tells the congregation they shouldn't drink alcohol at all, because if they never touch it, they won't become a drunkard.  God never says they can never drink alcohol, but just that they aren't to drink in excess.  If the person follows that teaching, they won't be more likely to become a drunkard, but less likely.  If the minister doesn't go so far as to tell them they will go to hell if they ever touch a drop of alcohol, his teaching is harmless.  The Pharisees didn't do that.  They condemned the disciples for not following their expanded teaching on things like keeping the Sabbath.  Their own practice that wouldn't allow them to even pluck corn on the Sabbath didn't harm anyone.  The problem was when they became condemning.  So lets look at Adam and Eve again.  Lets suppose that God only told Adam not to eat of the fruit, but didn't say anything about not touching the tree, but Adam, trying to prevent Eve from getting in trouble, told her not to touch the tree.  That doesn't make her more likely to fall, but less likely if she believed it strongly enough. 

 

I still believe it is possible that God did advise Adam not to touch the tree, though I would never teach that as a fact, because I can't verify it.  I don't consider that kind of detail important for us, because we aren't the ones having to obey the commandment.  It would only be important to Adam and Eve.  If it were a commandment for us today not to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and not to even touch it, I would agree with you that it would have to be included in the Biblical text.  Since that is not something we have to deal with, it is not important.  It is a very minor detail.  It only becomes important when someone tries to make an illogical point by saying her having that extra-Biblical command caused her to fall, which is utter nonsense.  Whether you agree with me or not on the importance of this detail, I am glad that you are at least using logic in your position. 

 

Thanks for the compliment, but I can't take credit. I am expressing a teaching from Judaism concerning the fence around the law.

 

Pirkei Avot (wisdom of the fathers) 1 1  Moses received the Torah from Sinai and gave it over to Joshua. Joshua gave it over to the Elders, the Elders to the Prophets, and the Prophets gave it over to the Men of the Great Assembly. They [the Men of the Great Assembly] would always say these three things: Be cautious in judgment. Establish many pupils. And make a safety fence around the Torah.

 

This is from Judaism, and explains the authority of the Oral law, the chain of command so to speak as to the transmission of the Oral Law, and the primary instructions, which includes the fence around the written Torah/5 books of Moses. Quite a bit of the Talmud contains discussions about the law, what it meant, how to keep, including the safety fence.

 

The discussions and fine details of rules to make sure a person does not violate the law/Torah, is impressive as to the number of volumes or writing, and then the additional books further discussing and explaining. The base motivation is good, because the motivation was to ensure that the people did not violate the law, but the results were not so good.

 

If you have a list of things you do or don't do, that you go by, and depend on to keep you from violating Gods law, that can result in actions without heart. It is easier to keep the list of things to do, then sincerely desire God personally, and to be obedient to God. The Pharisees in general, wanted to teach the children of Israel to be obedient to the law given by God to them, but they passed down all of the rules/Halachah, which in reality, mistook these actions, and study of the writings of the Pharisees, as real zealousness for God.

 

I respect the Pharisees because I have read some of what they wrote, and see their sincerety and their stated intent. I know in scripture Jesus came down hard on them, but that was because some of them were more legalistic then others, but also, they actually were closer to what Jesus taught in many ways then other segments like the Sadducees. The Pharisees were right in so many thing that they taught, but still had faults which caused them to miss the Messiah, and lead the people away from the Messiah.  

 

Just two verses:

 

Isaiah 29:13 Then the Lord said, “Because this people draw near with their words And honor Me with their lip service, But they remove their hearts far from Me, And their reverence for Me consists of tradition learned by rote,

 

John 5:39 You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me;

[enoob57]

There is a lot more to the problems with the Pharisees than adding to the law of Moses to make it harder to break the law.  That is small in comparison to the greater wrongs they were guilty of, like intentionally perverting the law if it suited them so they could break it.  An example is when Jesus mentioned how they created a loophole so they could break the commandment to honor Father and Mother and appear guiltless.  They had also expanded the reasons to divorce to include anything.  I will say this Qnts.  I do at least find you more reasonable in what you are saying than some, in that at least you acknowledge the logic behind expanding certain laws, the reason for it, and how if you fully follow the expanded law, you cannot break the actual law.  It won't make you more likely to violate it.  I can acknowledge what you said about the Pharisees, but there is a bigger thing going on than just protecting people by expanding the law. 

 

Lets say that a minister gets up and tells the congregation they shouldn't drink alcohol at all, because if they never touch it, they won't become a drunkard.  God never says they can never drink alcohol, but just that they aren't to drink in excess.  If the person follows that teaching, they won't be more likely to become a drunkard, but less likely.  If the minister doesn't go so far as to tell them they will go to hell if they ever touch a drop of alcohol, his teaching is harmless.  The Pharisees didn't do that.  They condemned the disciples for not following their expanded teaching on things like keeping the Sabbath.  Their own practice that wouldn't allow them to even pluck corn on the Sabbath didn't harm anyone.  The problem was when they became condemning.  So lets look at Adam and Eve again.  Lets suppose that God only told Adam not to eat of the fruit, but didn't say anything about not touching the tree, but Adam, trying to prevent Eve from getting in trouble, told her not to touch the tree.  That doesn't make her more likely to fall, but less likely if she believed it strongly enough. 

 

I still believe it is possible that God did advise Adam not to touch the tree, though I would never teach that as a fact, because I can't verify it.  I don't consider that kind of detail important for us, because we aren't the ones having to obey the commandment.  It would only be important to Adam and Eve.  If it were a commandment for us today not to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and not to even touch it, I would agree with you that it would have to be included in the Biblical text.  Since that is not something we have to deal with, it is not important.  It is a very minor detail.  It only becomes important when someone tries to make an illogical point by saying her having that extra-Biblical command caused her to fall, which is utter nonsense.  Whether you agree with me or not on the importance of this detail, I am glad that you are at least using logic in your position.

Just a quick thought Butero... It was either Adam or God for it could not have been a lie... Love, Steven

[Guest Butero]

I will take the last part first concerning the Bishop.  Women are not qualified to be bishops because they cannot be the husband of one wife as I already stated.  I am fully aware of the word translated to man as several years back, we had a huge debate over it.  At the same time, the word translated to husband can only mean a man.  It can never be used for a woman.  I am saying a Bishop must be a married man with children, and yes, they must obey him.  Paul was not a Bishop.  He was an Apostle, so as a single man without a family, he was not qualified to be a Bishop.  I am not sure of Timothy's marital status.  I don't believe the Bible says.  Regardless, if he was single, he wasn't qualified to be a Bishop, but the Bible never calls him one.  He was a Pastor, but it is my contention that not all Pastors are Bishops.  If you are going to use the fact the Greek word for man can be a woman because the word can be used either way, then you have to acknowledge the word translated husband can only be used for a man.  You can't pick and choose with any credibility. 

 

What Eve said was not an "extra-Biblical comment," as she didn't have a Bible or a command not to add to it.  She didn't sin.  That very notion is ludicrous.  The Bible only records what happened in

the garden, and it doesn't necessarily give us every detail.  If it did, imagine how long it would be. 

 

Paul mentioning the wife's name first doesn't exactly show proof that the wife was a Pastor.  That is a huge stretch.  According to the book, "Everyone In The Bible," it doesn't even recognize them as Pastors, but only says a church met in their home.  It indicates they were missionaries. 

 

Here is the evidence you wanted to show Nymphas was not a Pastor and not necessarily a woman.  From the book, "Everyone In The Bible" by William B Barker, it says of Nymphas,  "A woman in the little Christian congregation at Laodicea, Nymphas was remembered by name by Paul in his list of personal greetings at the close of his letter tot he Colossians.  She was apparently a woman of prominence and means in the community, inasmuch as her house was the meeting place for the church at Laodicea.  Possibly Paul mentioned Nymphas by name because that he knew that his letter would be read in her house."   Next, from "The New Compact Bible Dictionary" edited by T. Alton Bryant, it says of Nymphas, "member of a church in Laodicea, or Colossae, which met in his house (Col. 4:15).  Paul sent him greetings."  Neither source believes Nymphas to be a Pastor, and one believes Nymphas to be a man and the other a woman.  There is no certainty either way. 

 

Now that I have shown Eve didn't have a Bible to add to, so she broke no law, and have agreed that Paul was not qualified to be a Bishop, and Timothy wouldn't be either if he was single, and I have provided the evidence you asked for that Nymphas wasn't a Pastor based on that verse, and there were questions over whether Nymphas was a male of female, where do you plan to go next?  And by the way, your last comment was completely false.  Here is your quote.

 

 

  It is theologically allowed for females to become Bishops because 1 Timothy 3:1 makes it clear that ONYONE may become a Bishop. 

 

 

I am assuming you mean "anyone."  A woman cannot qualify as she cannot be the husband of one wife, as it makes clear in 1 Timothy 3:2, and many men cannot qualify because they are not the husband of one wife.  They are single or have been married multiple times.  And yes, verse 4 comes in with regard to these men.  "One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity."   Everyone is not qualified to be a Bishop. 

[Guest Butero]

Lets begin at the end of your post first with Phoebe.  Romans 16:1 never says she was a Deacon.  It says of Phoebe, "I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea."  There is no proof she was a Deacon.  Now, lets move back to the start of your post.

 

Eve did tell the serpent she wasn't to so much as touch the tree.  We know she told him that, but we don't know where she got that idea.  It came from someplace, yet the Bible never records where.  It was most likely Adam, but it could have been God.  Either way, we don't know, but we know she got the impression somewhere, unless you believe she just made it up, which is possible.  As such, I can say with confidence that something took place that wasn't recorded in the text.  A lot of things happened that weren't recorded in the text of scripture, and we are forced to fill in the blanks using logic.  You are making assumptions that are not in scripture when you say Eve didn't have all the facts.  How do you know?  The Bible never says she didn't know the truth.  As a matter of fact, she may have added that comment to the serpent knowing it wasn't true.  So using your own logic, you have added to the Word when you claim Eve didn't have all the correct facts about the fruit from that tree.  BTW, you also added to the Word when you claimed Phebe is a Deacon.  Where does the Bible say that?  The word translated to servant isn't necessarily a Deacon, not to mention, using a Dictionary is adding to the Word.  I am just using your argument here.

 

I don't know who the Pastor was in the house of Nymphas, and it was not me that came to that conclusion that Nymphas was not the Pastor.  Two different books say that was the case.  One did refer to Nymphas as a woman, but neither agree with you that Nymphas was a Pastor.  The source you cited only suggests Nymphas was a woman, but doesn't prove she was a Pastor.  Again, two books I cited disagree with you, and you have to go beyond the Bible to say for sure she was a Pastor, and heaven forbid you do that as it would be extra-Biblical.

 

Apostles were not the first Bishops.  They acted as missionaries.  They would travel around and establish churches, but they weren't Bishops.  Bishops, Deacons and Elders were all created offices set up to take the carnal jobs off those exercising ministry gifts.  The Apostles, Pastors, Teachers, etc., didn't want to be tied down having to wait on tables and deal with carnal matters of running the churches, so they created these offices.  Unlike the ministry gifts, which are divine callings, those who wish to be Bishops, Deacons and Elders are men who desire the office because they want to help out in the church.  They are not divine callings, and they have specific qualifications.  I disagree with those who claim there were only the original Apostles and that's it.  Apostles are still called today and they are what we call missionaries.  Paul was not a Bishop.  If he was, show me a scripture that says Paul was a Bishop.  If you can't, you are adding to the Word, which you say is wrong. 

 

The word translated to man is a Greek word that can mean a man or a woman.  Clearly, in many instances in the Bible, it does mean a man, but I have been through this silly debate already, so I will acknowledge that kaphale can mean a man or a woman.  It doesn't necessarily mean a man or a woman, but the definition can be used both ways.  I am not arguing that point.  I am arguing that the word husband cannot under any circumstances mean a woman.  You can't get around that.  Paul doesn't have to use a word that is gender specific to translate to man to disqualify a woman from the office of Bishop or Deacon.  They are disqualified by the word translated to husband. 

 

The qualification of husband of one wife can mean he is not a polygamist, but not necessarily, given the fact to qualify as a widow for benefits from the church, the widow must have been the wife of one husband.  Women were not polygamists, so given that language, I am not sure that this is what it means.  It could just as easily, and more likely means can't have been married multiple times, but must be married now, and meet additional qualifications.

 

Again, you have given a bunch of scriptures that don't disqualify women from being Deacons, Bishops and Elders, but I have given you one that absolutely does disqualify them.  They can't be the husband of one wife.  No matter how you try to spin it, you can't get around that one word translated to husband.  No further proof is needed on my part. 

[Guest Butero]

This is extremely easy to rebut InChrist.  Again, I have been through this argument before.  The word translated to servant is diakonia, and here is it's definition. 

 

attendance (as a servant, etc.) aid, (official) service (espec. of thed Chr. teacher, or techn. of the diaconate): (ad-) minister, office, relief, service. 

 

This Greek word comes from the Greek word diakonos and here is it's definition.

 

an attendant, a waiter (at table or in other menial duties); spec. a Chr. teacher and pastor (techn. a deacon or deaconess) deacon , minister, servant.

 

It is not where our English word deacon comes from, but the fact the Greek word diakonia has different meanings.  You have been going on about how the Greek word translated man can mean a woman.  It can also mean a man, as it is where our word for man sometimes comes from.  You have proven nothing.  If you will notice too, my exact quote concerning this word is "the word translated to servant isn't necessarily a deacon," acknowledging that in some instances, the word can be translated to deacon, but not in all cases.  After all, it wasn't translated to deacon in this case, but was translated to servant, another of it's meanings in the Greek. 

 

While you keep referring to the word kaphale and how it can mean a man or woman, you seem to want to ignore the fact that diakonos can mean something as simple as a servant or even a waiter at a table that does menial duties.  You also want to ignore the fact that the Greek word translated to husband can never apply to a woman.  The word husband is from the Greek word aner, and it means a man (as an individual male): fellow, husband, man, sir.  There is no getting around it, so a woman cannot qualify as a deacon.  Since I know a woman cannot be the husband of one wife, I know that Phoebe was not a Deacon, but in her case, the word diakonia means servant.  It is you that has shown a lack of knowledge on this subject, not me.  I was just waiting on you to return with something like this to see whether or not I had to expound on the Greek word translated to servant.  Until you can get around the word aner, and the fact a woman cannot be the aner of one husband, check mate.