Women pastors

[Ovedya]

No THAT ^^ is complicating.

Actually verse 13 is connected with authority and verse 14 is connected with teaching.

Adam was not deceived but Eve was deceived. It's connected with teaching because the woman is the weaker vessel (1 Pet. 3:7)

So then, why can a woman not assert authority over a man? Because man was created first. (13)

And why can a woman not teach a man? Because the woman was greatly deceived. (14)

That's strange. Paul didn't connect 'weaker vessel' to Eve being deceived. He did not say, 'For Adam was formed first then Eve and Adam was not deceived but the woman having been deceived fell into sin FOR she was the weaker vessel.' See now you are taking one verse in a different book and trying to connect it here when the passage you refer to has nothing to do with Adam and Eve nor teaching and 'authority'.

Paul made one sweeping connection of not 'teaching and 'having authority over' TO the order of creation which is connected to who was and wasn't deceived. Paul did not connect the prohibtion in the way that you claim. Besides, Eve never taught Adam and neither did she exercise authority over him. Then too nor did Adam over Eve.

By tossing what Paul said which was, 'For Adam was formed first then Eve and Adam was not deceivied but the woman being deceived fell into transgression' and adding to his words, forcing other ideas unto the text, only then can one miss Paul's connection between who was and wasn't deceived and why and how that relates to v.12.

No it doesn't. It further helps to clarify the Bible's position with regard to women having authority over men and teaching men.

Even if you don't accept my connection there, the very least the verse teaches is that a woman cannot teach a man because the first woman was deceived. Either way, a woman is not permitted to teach a man.

BTW: The two verses are not intertwined as you put it. The "for" in verse 13 is connected with verse 12, as the "and" in verse 14 is also connected with verse 12. It is not that the order of creation has anything to do with who was and who was not deceived.

[firehill]

And by how many waves of teaching will you be tossed until you discover the simplicity of the verses themselves? How long a rabbit trail will you follow in an attempt to "discover the deep and hidden meaning" of a passage of verses which are very clear and straightforward.

You cannot deconstruct these verses, no matter how hard you try or to what lengths you go. They are very clear and straightforward. Believe them or don't.

It is simple. Paul STATES a connection between who was created when and who was deceived and who wasn't. Anything else is to add to the text and change the intention of the author. Only Genesis can show why the woman was deceived and Adam wasn't becuase Paul says nothing else as to why Eve was. He only connects it to her having been created after Adam. That's it.

You on the other hand have added to Paul's words.

[Marnie]

Adam was not deceived but Eve was deceived. It's connected with teaching because the woman is the weaker vessel (1 Pet. 3:7)

So then, why can a woman not assert authority over a man? Because man was created first. (13)

And why can a woman not teach a man? Because the woman was greatly deceived. (14)

Whoa. Elsewhere, it says sin entered the world through one man, Adam. While Eve may have been deceived, Adam gets the credit for opening the door to sin. Further, Eve was deceived but Adam transgressed willingly; he was obviously in close proximity to the conversation between Eve and the serpent.

Your reasoning on this borders on being boorish, even though I heartily agree with your conclusion, there should not be women pastors.

I think the evidence for Adam's presence with Eve and the serpent at the tree of knowledge is questionable. While I agree that Adam transgressed willingly, this doesn't have anything to do with why a woman is not permitted to have authority over a man.

Since she handed the fruit off to Adam, we can reasonably conclude he was close to her.

I would say that there is a divine order to be maintained that has nothing to do with the order of creation or being deceived.

The order of creation is the reason that Paul gave: "For Adam was created first."

The account says that Eve gave the fruit to Adam but does not say that he was there. One would reasonably expect that if Adam was standing their listening to the conversation between Eve and the serpent that he would have said or done something about it. In fact, it's likely that the conversation between Eve and the serpent was without Adam's knowledge. He didn't mention being there when he accused the woman before God either. He simply said, "the woman which you gave to be with me gave to me and I ate."

If we take the temptation of Jesus (the Second Adam) to be a counterpart of the first Adam's temptation, we have to conclude that Adam was not only tempted by the Eve, but also by the serpent. Jesus was tempted personally, therefore Adam must have also been.

[firehill]

The order of creation is the reason that Paul gave: "For Adam was created first."

No it's not as I've been explaining...

The account says that Eve gave the fruit to Adam but does not say that he was there.

The serpent asked in plural, 'you' and Eve responded in plural, 'you'. And the text says he was with her.

[Ovedya]

It is simple. Paul STATES a connection between who was created when and who was deceived and who wasn't.

No, it doesn't. There is no connection between who was created first and who was deceived first. Paul makes no such argument in 1 Tim. or anywhere else.

[OopsMartin]

Even if you don't accept my connection there, the very least the verse teaches is that a woman cannot teach a man because the first woman was deceived. Either way, a woman is not permitted to teach a man..

I don't see the sense in that at all. Neither is it ever stated anywhere else in Scripture.

What kind of spiritual law is this......

The fact that Eve was deceived is directly connected to the fact that she engaged in conversation with the cleverest of all creature. Now if you wanted to suggest that any woman that engaged in a similar conversation with the same clever creature stands a good chance of being deceived you might have more logic behind you. But just because Eve was deceived does not mean she is predisposed to being deceived, nor does it mean that all females would be predisposed to being deceived...... anymore than it means that all men are predisposed to willfully knowingly deliberately choosing to sin.

[Ovedya]

The order of creation is the reason that Paul gave: "For Adam was created first."

No it's not as I've been explaining...

The account says that Eve gave the fruit to Adam but does not say that he was there.

The serpent asked in plural, 'you' and Eve responded in plural, 'you'. And the text says he was with her.

We're not getting back into this here, firehill, regardless of how badly you want to. The text does not state or imply that Adam was with her at all.

[Marnie]

The order of creation is the reason that Paul gave: "For Adam was created first."

No it's not as I've been explaining...

The account says that Eve gave the fruit to Adam but does not say that he was there.

The serpent asked in plural, 'you' and Eve responded in plural, 'you'. And the text says he was with her.

We're not getting back into this here, firehill, regardless of how badly you want to. The text does not state or imply that Adam was with her at all.

Of course it does. How can you think otherwise?

[OopsMartin]

The order of creation is the reason that Paul gave: "For Adam was created first."

what does being born first have to do with exercising gifts and skills.

[OopsMartin]

The order of creation is the reason that Paul gave: "For Adam was created first."

No it's not as I've been explaining...

The account says that Eve gave the fruit to Adam but does not say that he was there.

The serpent asked in plural, 'you' and Eve responded in plural, 'you'. And the text says he was with her.

We're not getting back into this here, firehill, regardless of how badly you want to. The text does not state or imply that Adam was with her at all.

Of course it does. How can you think otherwise?

Exactly..... she gave to the Adam who was with her.

she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.