OopsMartin Posted June 26, 2007 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 4 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 829 Content Per Day: 0.13 Reputation: 3 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/25/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/26/1943 Share Posted June 26, 2007 It wouldn't make sense for this passage to be stopping all women from teaching as the context is clearly referencing deception. We know that not all women are deceived and not all women are easily deceived. So what is Paul's normal practice when it comes to those who are deceived? Well, we know that Paul has no problem in identifying those who are deceivers as he identifies two of them in chapter one of 1 Timothy. Hymenaeus and Alexander are identified by Paul but they are not the deceived but actual deceivers. In 2 Timothy 2:17 Hymenaeus is mentioned as one who teaches that the resurrection had already happened. But Paul never identifies the deceived by name. If you will research Paul's writings about error, he never once records the names of the deceived. Paul's hope was that the deceived could be reached with the truth and it would not be a good thing for their names to be forever linked with their deception once they are saved. No Paul is kind and gentle to the deceived. "A woman" would have been one of the deceived and not a deceiver because Paul says that she must learn. The deceivers were not open to learning except by being handed over to Satan "to learn not to blaspheme". Paul several times mentions "a man" in a generic way when it is evident that he is not talking about generic man. In 2 Cor. 12:2 Paul said I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago (whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows) was caught up to the third heaven. Now every man was caught up into the third heaven and most commentators believe the "a man" was Paul himself. Paul also named "a man" as living with his father's wife. Not every man was living with his father's wife so the "a man" was most certainly an individual person. Wonderful studious insight and research here. You have a gift and I am glad to be blessed by it. These passages have nothing to do with anybody being deceivers. It is speaking of how that it was Eve who was deceived by Satan and because of all that happened in the garden. 1 Timothy 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. The woman in this verse is speaking of Eve. We know this because it couple's Adam in the conversation. Genesis 3:12-13 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat. And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat. The woman was Eve, not some woman deceiver. What Paul wrote in Timothy he also wrote here - 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 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. Both in Timothy and in 1 Corinthians it is speaking of during the worship that the women are to remain silent. They are not to usurp the authority of men, in which are the preachers. So now we jump from discussing a particular section of Scripture to proclaiming that all men are preachers. LOL Interesting, how so often certain kinds of men want to jump up and down in class and give the same answer no matter what the subject is the class is discussing. And ever so interesting when that same answer, messed up as it usually is, is all about honoring themselves. Some people are concept blind in the same way that others a color blind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neopatriarch Posted June 26, 2007 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 167 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/18/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted June 26, 2007 I disagree in general. It is my contention that he got it right in the first sentence when he said: "or "But she will be saved in spite of childbearing."" Watch out pregnant women! You may be at risk! Hey Oops, maybe these women ought to play it safe and start using contraceptives. -Neopatriarch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OopsMartin Posted June 26, 2007 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 4 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 829 Content Per Day: 0.13 Reputation: 3 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/25/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/26/1943 Share Posted June 26, 2007 I disagree in general. It is my contention that he got it right in the first sentence when he said: "or "But she will be saved in spite of childbearing."" Watch out pregnant women! You may be at risk! Hey Oops, maybe these women ought to play it safe and start using contraceptives. -Neopatriarch I don't follow you Neo. It is my observation that Paul was likely countering a popular gnostic idea that women could not become spiritual unless they were not involved in what gnostics considered earthly carnal activities such as birthing and child rearing. Paul was saying that women would indeed be saved, in spite of their earthly carnal duties of child rearing. Such things would not stop them from being spiritual as long as they followed the normal requirements of continuing in faith, love, holiness with self control. As for the contraceptives, maybe the gnostics would have liked that idea. I recollect reading somewhere that natural contraceptives as well as natural contraception encouragers have always been around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ColleenLovesMischief Posted June 27, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 100 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 2,791 Content Per Day: 0.37 Reputation: 21 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/21/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 06/13/1977 Share Posted June 27, 2007 I disagree in general. It is my contention that he got it right in the first sentence when he said: "or "But she will be saved in spite of childbearing."" Watch out pregnant women! You may be at risk! Hey Oops, maybe these women ought to play it safe and start using contraceptives. -Neopatriarch I don't follow you Neo. It is my observation that Paul was likely countering a popular gnostic idea that women could not become spiritual unless they were not involved in what gnostics considered earthly carnal activities such as birthing and child rearing. Paul was saying that women would indeed be saved, in spite of their earthly carnal duties of child rearing. Such things would not stop them from being spiritual as long as they followed the normal requirements of continuing in faith, love, holiness with self control. As for the contraceptives, maybe the gnostics would have liked that idea. I recollect reading somewhere that natural contraceptives as well as natural contraception encouragers have always been around. Since when is child rearing carnal? Last time I checked children were a loan from God that He trusts us with to bring up in Him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firehill Posted June 27, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 11 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,980 Content Per Day: 0.30 Reputation: 2 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/17/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted June 27, 2007 An excellent treatment of 1 Timothy 2:15 can be found at this link: Saved through childbearing? by Andreas Kostenberger. -Neopatriach The article made clear that the 1 Tim 2 passage is a stumper for theologians and it in so many words said that it comes down to women being kept safe from satan by adhering to their God given role of a domestic life (getting married and having children). Is that what would have protected Eve from being deceived that is, since she was already with Adam (her domestic affair that did not help her while the serpent was attacking) did she need to have children in order for her to not have been deceived. I mean if this is what Paul was trying to get across then he could have very well said so since he did after all reference Adam and the woman who was deceived and fell into transgression. What a stumper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OopsMartin Posted June 27, 2007 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 4 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 829 Content Per Day: 0.13 Reputation: 3 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/25/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/26/1943 Share Posted June 27, 2007 An excellent treatment of 1 Timothy 2:15 can be found at this link: Saved through childbearing? by Andreas Kostenberger. -Neopatriach The article made clear that the 1 Tim 2 passage is a stumper for theologians and it in so many words said that it comes down to women being kept safe from satan by adhering to their God given role of a domestic life (getting married and having children). Is that what would have protected Eve from being deceived that is, since she was already with Adam did she need to have children in order for her to not have been deceived. I mean if this is what Paul was trying to get across then he could have very well said so since he did after all reference Adam and the woman who was deceived and fell into transgression. What a stumper. That is so laughable. I can just see it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OopsMartin Posted June 27, 2007 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 4 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 829 Content Per Day: 0.13 Reputation: 3 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/25/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/26/1943 Share Posted June 27, 2007 Since when is child rearing carnal? Last time I checked children were a loan from God that He trusts us with to bring up in Him It means of the flesh, earthly. That is how the agnostics looked at it. We as Christians know there is a lot more to it. But in that era, 2000 years ago, the agnostics considered it earthly, of nature, and not spiritual. Even though we know that there is much more to good mothering, it still isn't going to save anyone. Only Christ's life, death and resurrection have the power to save anyone. Even holy living isn't going to save anyone including women. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Biblicist Posted June 27, 2007 Share Posted June 27, 2007 I disagree in general. It is my contention that he got it right in the first sentence when he said: "or "But she will be saved in spite of childbearing."" Did you go to Bible.org and read the entire thing. It doesn't stop there, OopsMartin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neopatriarch Posted June 27, 2007 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 167 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/18/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted June 27, 2007 An excellent treatment of 1 Timothy 2:15 can be found at this link: Saved through childbearing? by Andreas Kostenberger. -Neopatriach The article made clear that the 1 Tim 2 passage is a stumper for theologians and it in so many words said that it comes down to women being kept safe from satan by adhering to their God given role of a domestic life (getting married and having children). Is that what would have protected Eve from being deceived that is, since she was already with Adam (her domestic affair that did not help her while the serpent was attacking) did she need to have children in order for her to not have been deceived. I mean if this is what Paul was trying to get across then he could have very well said so since he did after all reference Adam and the woman who was deceived and fell into transgression. What a stumper. 1 Timothy 5:14 So I would have younger widows marry, bear children (teknogoneō), manage their households, and give the adversary no occasion for slander. 15 For some have already strayed after Satan. What was your problem again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firehill Posted June 27, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 11 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,980 Content Per Day: 0.30 Reputation: 2 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/17/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted June 27, 2007 An excellent treatment of 1 Timothy 2:15 can be found at this link: Saved through childbearing? by Andreas Kostenberger. -Neopatriach The article made clear that the 1 Tim 2 passage is a stumper for theologians and it in so many words said that it comes down to women being kept safe from satan by adhering to their God given role of a domestic life (getting married and having children). Is that what would have protected Eve from being deceived that is, since she was already with Adam (her domestic affair that did not help her while the serpent was attacking) did she need to have children in order for her to not have been deceived. I mean if this is what Paul was trying to get across then he could have very well said so since he did after all reference Adam and the woman who was deceived and fell into transgression. What a stumper. 1 Timothy 5:14 So I would have younger widows marry, bear children (teknogoneō), manage their households, and give the adversary no occasion for slander. 15 For some have already strayed after Satan. What was your problem again? That Eve wasn't a widow? What's the connection that you are trying to force again? Eve was with Adam (had a domestic life) yet that (or he) didn't save her from the adversary. Paul, in this verse above, that you quote which is not even the verse under discussion is counseling w-i-d-o-w-s who had strayed after satan. Are you next gonna try to say that deceived Eve strayed after satan when yet Adam rebelled eyes wide open? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts