Women Pastors

[LeeLoving]

I have serious issue with Paul's reasoning for why a Woman should not be in leadership. Read this verse in 1 Timothy the second chapter. 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.

The reason this bothers me is yes, Eve was indeed deceived.
But Adam was not deceived, which meant he basically said to God, take your command and shove it where the sun don't shine. Adam blatantly went against the Command of God. And if that makes him a qualifier for a Preacher, I want NO PART of that type of church.

OKAY. This might get me some trouble, but being a man I've always read it that women are different than men. in this case, in that Eve was deceived and Adam wasn't. As shown by this there is a quality in all women that makes them not fit to have authority over men in Church. It also says that Adam was formed first. Don't abandon or disregard proper teachings. Paul was an Apostle and is affirmed through Peter in writing in the New Testament, there is no Biblical reason to disregard what he has to say.

 

[Dino246]

OKAY. This might get me some trouble, but being a man I've always read it that women are different than men.

Women are indeed different from men, in every cell of their bodies. However, you won't find "leadership" in either gender's cells.

in this case, in that Eve was deceived and Adam wasn't. As shown by this there is a quality in all women that makes them not fit to have authority over men in Church.

That isn't what the text says. What the text says is Eve was deceived... and nothing whatsoever is said or implied that all women or any other women are susceptible to deceit or have any other quality that makes the unfit to have authority. See my comments to Wolfwint regarding authentein.

 

[FollowerofShiloh]

OKAY. This might get me some trouble, but being a man I've always read it that women are different than men. in this case, in that Eve was deceived and Adam wasn't. As shown by this there is a quality in all women that makes them not fit to have authority over men in Church. It also says that Adam was formed first. Don't abandon or disregard proper teachings. Paul was an Apostle and is affirmed through Peter in writing in the New Testament, there is no Biblical reason to disregard what he has to say.

We don't even know how Eve learned she should not eat of the Tree. Adam might not have been clear or thorough enough. But the Bible shows us Adam was there when Eve was being deceived. If he's the head of this marriage and held most responsible, why did he allow Eve to be deceived?

So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.

Paul is just throwing Eve under the bus here when Adam was there and could have stopped it. And this is the qualification Paul used for why Women cannot preach. Paul sounds more like a Pharisee in this portion of scripture than anywhere else.

 

[LeeLoving]

Women are indeed different from men, in every cell of their bodies. However, you won't find "leadership" in either gender's cells.


That isn't what the text says. What the text says is Eve was deceived... and nothing whatsoever is said or implied that all women or any other women are susceptible to deceit or have any other quality that makes the unfit to have authority. See my comments to Wolfwint regarding authentein.

I think it's implied in the text that because Eve was deceived women are unfit to have authority over men in Church.

 

[LeeLoving]

We don't even know how Eve learned she should not eat of the Tree. Adam might not have been clear or thorough enough. But the Bible shows us Adam was there when Eve was being deceived. If he's the head of this marriage and held most responsible, why did he allow Eve to be deceived?

So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.

Paul is just throwing Eve under the bus here when Adam was there and could have stopped it. And this is the qualification Paul used for why Women cannot preach. Paul sounds more like a Pharisee in this portion of scripture than anywhere else.

How is he throwing Eve under the bus? He was just saying that Adam was not deceived but Eve was. If that's what happened that's what happened. Paul was an Apostle, if this is his reasoning I'm sure it's sound. AGAIN I might get into trouble for this, but it makes sense to me!

 

[FollowerofShiloh]

I think it's implied in the text that because Eve was deceived women are unfit to have authority over men in Church.

2 sides here.
Which is worse, being deceived, or not being deceived and just basically saying to God I could care less about Your Command?

 

[FollowerofShiloh]

How is he throwing Eve under the bus?

He's saying being deceived is worse than telling God and His Command to go take a hike.
Haven't we all believed a lie once in our lifetime. So we've all been deceived?

Paul believed a lie and murdered hundreds/possibly thousands of Christians. He was deceived more than most of us.

 

[Dino246]

I think it's implied in the text that because Eve was deceived women are unfit to have authority over men in Church.

We disagree on that, and surely mere implication can't be the basis for doctrine and practice.

 

[LeeLoving]

2 sides here.
Which is worse, being deceived, or not being deceived and just basically saying to God I could care less about Your Command?

It doesn't really matter which is worse, because that's not the issue here.

He's saying being deceived is worse than telling God and His Command to go take a hike. Haven't we all believed a lie once in our lifetime. So we've all been deceived?

Paul believed a lie and murdered hundreds of Christians. He was deceived more than most of us.

Not really. He just wrote that Eve was deceived but not Adam. That's his reasoning, other than Adam being formed first.

 

[FollowerofShiloh]

Not really. He just wrote that Eve was deceived but not Adam. That's his reasoning, other than Adam being formed first.

That's what my original post is saying. Paul used Eve being deceived to disqualify ALL WOMEN from being a preacher.
And he did this while "ignoring" the obvious about what Adam did.

 

[Dino246]

Not really. He just wrote that Eve was deceived but not Adam. That's his reasoning, other than Adam being formed first.

Animals, birds, fish and insects were formed before Adam. Does that mean these should have authority over all humans? No. Paul was not saying that because Adam was formed first, men are fit to have authority and women aren't.

 

[LeeLoving]

We disagree on that, and surely mere implication can't be the basis for doctrine and practice.

I don't know how you couldn't see that implication.

1 Timothy 2:11-14 (KJV)
11Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

 

[Dino246]

That's what my original post is saying. Paul used Eve being deceived to disqualify ALL WOMEN from being a preacher.
And he did this while "ignoring" the obvious about what Adam did.

May I encourage you to look further into the cultural context. Yours is a dangerous conclusion, and there is a better one.

 

[Dino246]

I don't know how you couldn't see that implication.

1 Timothy 2:11-14 (KJV)
11Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

It's not that I don't "see" the implication, but having done my homework (extensively) on this subject, I "know" that is not what Paul is saying.

 

[FollowerofShiloh]

May I encourage you to look further into the cultural context. "Paul is wrong" is a dangerous conclusion, and there is a better one.

I changed the post and removed that so I can re-examine it.

And I also believe culture played an important role here.
Women were still considered property. Basically a slave. That would immediately disqualify them.

 

[LeeLoving]

That's what my original post is saying. Paul used Eve being deceived to disqualify ALL WOMEN from being a preacher.
And he did this while "ignoring" the obvious about what Adam did.
I believe Paul is wrong.

Well that was his reasoning. Preaching would be teaching in a sense, so yes, I suppose he would be saying that a woman should not be doing that in church and part of his reasoning is that Eve was deceived and not Adam. I don't know how he was ignoring anything Adam did.

 

[Dino246]

I changed the post and removed that so I can re-examine it.

And I also believe culture played an important role here.
Women were still considered property. Basically a slave. That would immediately disqualify them.

Culture is indeed important. In the Greek/Roman context, women had a much higher social status than in many pagan cultures.

 

[LeeLoving]

It's not that I don't "see" the implication, but having done my homework (extensively) on this subject, I "know" that is not what Paul is saying.

Does the original Greek say something different than the KJV? I don't know how much more research would be needed, but the KJV seems pretty clear.

 

[FollowerofShiloh]

Well that was his reasoning. Preaching would be teaching in a sense, so yes, I suppose he would be saying that a woman should not be doing that in church and part of his reasoning is that Eve was deceived and not Adam. I don't know how he was ignoring anything Adam did.

I would presume that you have some understanding of the Jewish culture around 60's AD, roughly 30 years after the DBR and Ascension of Jesus. The Gospels allude to it when they say 4,000/5,000 men but never including women and children (property). When Paul wrote this, women were still property of their husbands. And as already mentioned, many foreign women were leaders and some were priestesses in their pagan rituals. I think Paul is using Genesis 3 as an easy way to kill multiple birds with one stone, sort of theory.

 

[LeeLoving]

I would presume that you have some understanding of the Jewish culture around 60's AD, roughly 30 years after the DBR and Ascension of Jesus. The Gospels allude to it when they say 4,000/5,000 men but never including women and children (property). When Paul wrote this, women were still property of their husbands. And as already mentioned, many foreign women were leaders and some were priestesses in their pagan rituals. I think Paul is using Genesis 3 as an easy way to kill multiple birds with one stone, sort of theory.

No offense, but I think you're bringing your own presuppositions this.