Bible Discussion Thread

1 Timothy 2:12

But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. Does this verse mean a woman should not, in any case, have authority over the man?

Hello "Chuckles44" is true as it says, and this we must understand that this was written to men and women in the church context. As many many have distorted. We are going to talk about the woman here: An unusually weak, uneducated individual, (did they go to school at all, it must be allowed to ask yourself)? A person who can serve. A person to and subordinate. A mother, a nurturer, it's allways the woman's fault, and mm. At first, there were only men in the churches. But Jesus probably solved that problem. Because He was followed by many women. And Paul also had many sisters. So this is probably more proof that the church Timothy ruled over, had some difficulties with authority in the church during meetings for example. It is not only women who talk over each other at meetings. Many men interrupt and speak too. Unfortunately, narrow-minded men are often the cause of divisions and apostasy in churches. But if we are going to look at it, remember that a man is called a fool, and much, much more if you look in Proverbs. So my advice is that you overcome the thought of and see this negative attitude that can be distorted to underestimate and discriminate against women. In the eyes of God, we all stand equal before God. Eph 5:21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God. That is what is right. Romans 15:2 Let every one of us please his neighbour for his good to edification. There may be a few more who have some good words on this question. I hope you have gotten some answers, and you are welcome to ask any more questions you may have. Love you in Jesus.

While many speak of 'culture' and prevailing circumstances when Paul taught about women in the church not speaking etc .

He spoke not a thing as the foundation for his reasoning . But rather took it to the root of the matter as in Genesis and that the woman was deceived .

A much harder proposition I grant you but we cannot avoid it .

For our thinking in this matter is so ingrained by nature and the world into which we were born both men and women red to be renewed in our minds by the Word of God and the Spirit of God.

Might I suggest another look at the marriage at Canaan ?

When Mary the mother of Jesus ( His flesh) said to Him " they have no wine (?)

He replied " Woman what hast thou to do with me seeing that mine hour is not yet come" John .

He did not say mother . Knowing full well how some religionists would place where He did not .

For from his baptism he gave her no place as having any authority over Him.

( and still does not) "mine hour is not yet come " Later in John He said " Now is mine hour come" twice I think . What hour was that? When men would take Him at their will and subject Him to the authority of Man .

Woman what hast thou to do with me? Adam obeyed Eve and did her will rather than Gods and loved Eve more than God .

The relationship between men and women has been cockeyed ever since.

The Lord by those words said she had no authority over him and He was not there to do her will but His Father's will .

What hast thou to do with me? Man was created out of the dust of the earth . Woman was created from the body of the man . Something we have forgotten the woman for the man not the man fir the woman .But God doing all things well has every man since born of a woman . But have since made that the be all and end all ?

Even as God made the Woman or the bride of Adam out of his body .So also the Bride of Christ will come from the midst of His own body .being the " last Adam ".

Another pointer o a better understanding perhaps .

Hi "Gerald" It is a shame that you have not seen it and neither has Paul whom you refer to. But it was Adam who was commissioned to look after the Garden of Eden. Genesis 2:16-18 Try and see that Eve was born under this command is highly heretical!

I will say no more, you can judge for yourself. love u. Joh 4

How therefore is it heretical? Unless you are calling Paul heretical too?

For it is clear that God gave Adam first the commandment of what was in effect goid to eat and evil to eat .

I don't hold to the prevailing opinion that it gave man ' freedom of choice' .

For where in the words " thou shalt not eat of that tree" is God giving Adam a choice? In truth God did give Adam the liberty to eat if any tree in the garden that was good to eat . Which included the tree of life.

For is it not written ( paraphrased) Man shall not live by every tree that was goid to eat but by that word that came out of His mouth as to what was good and what was evil ' and by Gods knowledge of good and evil they lived . It was only when they rejected the Word of life did they die .

It was Eve who first let by the character assignation of God that led to the rejection of Gods Word and believing the serpents words . Did not Paul warn the church not to be as deceived as Eve was?

She then " SAW that the tree was good to eat " and she reasoned thus " it wouid make her wise "

The sin was disobedience "for by one man's disobedience all die "

Adam obeyed his wife not God . It was a good thing Job did not obey his wife .

A husband shouid always listen to his wife but must always obey God .if push comes to shove .

The Lord did not obey His mother ( of his flesh) indeed at one point He denied his flesh and said " who is my mother "?

And said they who do the will of God are Hus true mother and brethren."

Hello thanks for your reply .

I cannot think that Paul did not know the scraptures far better than I do and was unaware that God gave the responsibility of all of the earth into his hands . That is beyond all dispute and aI thought I had addressed that ?

But as I pointed out Eve was not born but created from the body of Adam .

Thus Gods commands were first given to Adam who then passed them on to Eve .

Wether he added to that commandment of "not to eat of that tree " for in the day you eat ye shall surely die " the words nor " touch it" is a moot point but not beyond the bounds of possibility . God did not say do not 'touch it ' and it's never wise to add to what God said in such a specific command .

But Paul foundation for his teaching about women was not cultural ( how do you prove that?) but on the foundation which he states very clearly but which everyone ignores for it demands then a lot more thought than we wish to give the matter .Having been misused over the centuries as an excuse for putting women in a position even the Lord never did nor all of scrioture. Though it does record mans wrong attitude to women .

Eve was created from his rib or side not his feet to use her as a door mat ,not his head for her to Lord it over the man . Not his back so she must walk behind him 6' or more . But from his side to walk with him a " help meet for him" .

So I stand by what I said as to the foundation of Paul's thinking on the matter for that is beyond all doubt what it was . Understanding the issue as it is in Christ is another matter .

I used the marriage of Canaan as food for thought on the matter because of the Lords word " Woman" which it wouid be impossible to think He used it in a derogatory way as some do .

But as in 'respected' woman . But given what Rome has made of her the scriptures deny them all that that 'church ' has made if her . We see that the Lord never gave ground to her as having any authority over Him . Nor she in the church .