Who is Jesus Christ in this verse and why they call him The Everlasting Father?

[GWH]

You're making the assumption that he was there by her side approving of what she did. "With her" is not constrained to such rigid meaning.

Yes it is.

No assumption, merely reading what it obviously says and means,
although actually the first or original sin was not eating physical fruit, but rather choosing not to doubt the Devil,
not to cooperate with God, and not asking God why the serpent contradicted what He had told them (Gen. 3:4, MT 7:7).
It is wise to question God. The serpent introduced the option of ungodliness or functional atheism, which they chose.

in Gen. 3:7-13. Adam and Eve tried to cover up their crime, refusing to accept responsibility for their mistakes. They should have confessed immediately (1JN 1:9). Instead their ungodly attitude was manifested by a chain of sins, including their silly attempt to hide from God and to blame someone else and very likely “dysfunctional” parenting that probably contributed to the emotional disturbance (anger) in Cain that resulted in the murder of Abel and so on and so forth through the millenniums.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

Yes it is.

No assumption, merely reading what it obviously says and means,
although actually the first or original sin was not eating physical fruit, but rather choosing not to doubt the Devil,
not to cooperate with God, and not asking God why the serpent contradicted what He had told them (Gen. 3:4, MT 7:7).
It is wise to question God. The serpent introduced the option of ungodliness or functional atheism, which they chose.

in Gen. 3:7-13. Adam and Eve tried to cover up their crime, refusing to accept responsibility for their mistakes. They should have confessed immediately (1JN 1:9). Instead their ungodly attitude was manifested by a chain of sins, including their silly attempt to hide from God and to blame someone else and very likely “dysfunctional” parenting that probably contributed to the emotional disturbance (anger) in Cain that resulted in the murder of Abel and so on and so forth through the millenniums.

You're with somebody in a store who shoplifts something without your knowledge. Are you guilty of that crime? Of course not. Adam could have had his back turned or been paying attention to something besides his wife when she commited the crime. You're making the assumption that Adam was micromanaging Eve.

 

[GWH]

You're with somebody in a store who shoplifts something without your knowledge. Are you guilty of that crime? Of course not. Adam could have had his back turned or been paying attention to something besides his wife when she commited the crime. You're making the assumption that Adam was micromanaging Eve.

I hope I can assume that you are not guilty of being unwilling to understand that saying "Then the eyes of BOTH of them were opened,
and THEY realized THEY were naked..." means A&E were partners in crime/sin.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

I hope I can assume that you are not guilty of being unwilling to understand that saying "Then the eyes of BOTH of them were opened,
and THEY realized THEY were naked..." means A&E were partners in crime/sin.

Yes they were partners, but you seem to imply that Eve suggested to Adam that they eat, and then both ate together. It says Eve ate first and then offered it to Adam to eat. Adam wasn't deceived like his wife was; he was dealing with the fact his wife committed a crime and then decided to join her in that crime for reasons we can only speculate about.

 

[GWH]

Yes they were partners, but you seem to imply that Eve suggested to Adam that they eat, and then both ate together. It says Eve ate first and then offered it to Adam to eat. Adam wasn't deceived like his wife was; he was dealing with the fact his wife committed a crime and then decided to join her in that crime for reasons we can only speculate about.

Partners in crime means both were equally guilty. It is silly to speculate that the Bible should have described them as eating the fruit simultaneously which is only attempted at party games.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

Partners in crime means both were equally guilty. It is silly to speculate that the Bible should have described them as eating the fruit simultaneously which is only attempted at party games.

Yes, equally guilty, but I think the point Paul was trying to make is that without Eve there would have been no crime because she was seduced, whereas he wasn't

 

[GWH]

Yes, equally guilty, but I think the point Paul was trying to make is that without Eve there would have been no crime because she was seduced, whereas he wasn't

Well I think Paul wanted to justify making men the head of their wives by interpreting the A and E story in that way, perhaps without noticing that what he said in Galatians 3:28 makes that problematic.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

Well I think Paul wanted to justify making men the head of their wives by interpreting the A and E story in that way, perhaps without noticing that what he said in Galatians 3:28 makes that problematic.

It's not problematic because that passage describes a spritual reality, not a physical one. In heaven, where we don't bodily dwell, there is no husband-wife hierarchy because there is no marriage and Christ is the head of all.

 

[GWH]

It's not problematic because that passage describes a spritual reality, not a physical one. In heaven, where we don't bodily dwell, there is no husband-wife hierarchy because there is no marriage and Christ is the head of all.

I am talking about 1Tim. 2:11-15, in which Paul says women should not teach or have authority over men because of A&E,
which I find to be problematic logic referring to earthly relationships that contradicts Gal. 3:28 saying there is neither Jew nor Greek... male nor female."

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

I am talking about 1Tim. 2:11-15, in which Paul says women should not teach or have authority over men because of A&E,
which I find to be problematic logic referring to earthly relationships that contradicts Gal. 3:28 saying there is neither Jew nor Greek... male nor female."

I think a better translation would be wife instead of woman. They are the same Greek word used in that verse. In other words, a wife should not teach or exercise authority over a man; let her husband handle that. But if an unmarried woman speaks the word of God to a man, then IMO it carries as much authority as if a man spoke it.