Women will be saved through Childbearing, if

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
11,929
6,188
113
It is simply the issue of authorities established by God. For example:

1. Christ (bridegroom) has authority over the church (bride). Can that change? Never.
2. The Father is greater than the son. Can that change? Never.

In the same manner, a woman can not have authority when it comes to matters spirituality over a man and it will not change.
That's circular reasoning, a non sequitur, and a gross paraphrase of Scripture.

But can a woman teach? of course yes, Paul has said so. Because she has authority over children both male and female.
A woman can also teach men on other things that are not related to spirituality/ gospel.
You're playing games. If women are not allowed to teach men, they are not allowed to teach men anything. If you're going to be wrong, at least be consistent and wrong.
 

Whispered

Well-known member
Aug 17, 2019
2,836
1,458
113
www.christiancourier.com
That's circular reasoning, a non sequitur, and a gross paraphrase of Scripture.


You're playing games. If women are not allowed to teach men, they are not allowed to teach men anything. If you're going to be wrong, at least be consistent and wrong.
Well said.
There can be no consistency when what speaks to women not being able to teach, be shepherds, be deacons, prophetesses, or serve in an office of the church, is saying God would never call women to serve Him in such ways because He shows partiality in calling men only.
Which is contrary to what God said of Himself. God shows no partiality, he is no respecter of persons.
 

Whispered

Well-known member
Aug 17, 2019
2,836
1,458
113
www.christiancourier.com
It is simply the issue of authorities established by God. For example:

1. Christ (bridegroom) has authority over the church (bride). Can that change? Never.
2. The Father is greater than the son. Can that change? Never.

In the same manner, a woman can not have authority when it comes to matters spirituality over a man and it will not change.

But can a woman teach? of course yes, Paul has said so. Because she has authority over children both male and female.
A woman can also teach men on other things that are not related to spirituality/ gospel.

But there's also another thing. Jesus appointed those who were to preach the gospel and even though in that group there were women, non was appointed for that role. I also think that all were to meet a brutal ending to their lives as Jesus had said to some.
So yes there were women but there role was not to be on the forefront preaching the gospel. The one who preached the gospel, had to die:

2 Cor 4:
12So then, death is at work in us, but life is at work in you.

13It is written: “I believed; therefore I have spoken.” b Since we have that same spirit of c faith, we also believe and therefore speak, 14because we know that the one who raised the Lord Jesus from the dead will also raise us with Jesus and present us with you to himself. 15All this is for your benefit, so that the grace that is reaching more and more people may cause thanksgiving to overflow to the glory of God.
You really don't have the heart for your argument do you. You're simply throwing these things out there so as to keep the issue going.

You say a woman can teach. Go so far as to say, of course yes!And admit, Paul says so.
When Paul said so, Paul was referring to and praising those women who taught along side him the Gospel.

Stop with your feeble transparent effort to bait the women here to argue against a premise you yourself aren't even able to sustain logically in your own words.
Whatever you serve, may you find your way to the light of the Truth. Amen.
 

Noose

Senior Member
Apr 18, 2016
4,769
875
113
You really don't have the heart for your argument do you. You're simply throwing these things out there so as to keep the issue going.

You say a woman can teach. Go so far as to say, of course yes!And admit, Paul says so.
When Paul said so, Paul was referring to and praising those women who taught along side him the Gospel.

Stop with your feeble transparent effort to bait the women here to argue against a premise you yourself aren't even able to sustain logically in your own words.
Whatever you serve, may you find your way to the light of the Truth. Amen.
Yes, Paul says so but you are not following Paul's argument at all.

Paul says women can not have authority over men because women came from men, but in another place he says men also came from women:

1 Cor 11:11In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12For just as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.

According to the above statement, women have authority over children; male and female, so with that respect, they can teach otherwise they are not supposed to teach men a s a rule.
 

Noose

Senior Member
Apr 18, 2016
4,769
875
113
You're playing games. If women are not allowed to teach men, they are not allowed to teach men anything. If you're going to be wrong, at least be consistent and wrong.
:):)

When bible talks about teachers, it only pertains to matters God (spirituality) not Mathematics and sciences also.
 

Noose

Senior Member
Apr 18, 2016
4,769
875
113
I did clarify how you missed my point, but you missed that too.

You claim that because culture is not part of Scripture, it can't support scripture. Where do you get that codswollop? Have you taken any training in hermeneutics at all? Understanding culture is important, and almost foundational, to understanding Scripture. Yes, you can get the gist of Scripture without knowing the cultures in which it was written, but you're missing out on a lot of information that will make the passages make more sense.

It's not about putting aside Scripture for extra-biblical "knowledge" (I notice the unnecessary characterization). Rather, it's allowing the cultural context to inform how you interpret the passage in question.

In the case of 1 Timothy 2, Paul was writing to Timothy who was leading a church in Ephesus, the centre of worship of Diana/Artemis, replete with paganism of several forms. There were gnostic cults with female priestess/teachers who taught wacky ideas about Adam, Eve, and creation and also offered their students "private lessons" (yes, that's a euphemism). In this cultural context, Paul's words make perfect sense: he would not allow a woman of this sort to teach, seduce, or exercise inappropriate influence over a man. Rather, let her learn the truth the same way the males do; in quietness and full submission, for the ideas she learned elsewhere, that Eve was created first and was not deceived, are wrong, "for Adam was created first, and Eve was deceived." In this light, the passage does not mean, "women are not permitted to teach men because of the creation order". With nothing but a change of contextual understanding, the meaning of the passage is very different.

Your argument that Paul always referenced creation when talking about male/female is a stretch at best. He did not consistently refer to the same passage. He did not refer to creation at all in 1 Corinthians 14. There is only a reference to "the law", but that alleged law is not part of the Torah.
This is the funniest thing i have encountered this year

1. No proof of what you are saying. There were no such priestesses in Ephesus or any other place, otherwise Paul should have called them out.

2. Paul said women (1 Tim 2)/ wives (Eph 5)/ women (1 Cor 11)/ women (1 Cor 14). The word women or wives have a certain meaning, it can not mean individuals- it definitely means women in general.

Rev 2:20, Jesus talks of a particular woman (Jezebel) in the church without generalizing all women. Paul says women in general and wives in general.

3. Failed argument in general.
The bible was meant to be read as it is without any other additions. If reading the bible the way it is gives a certain understanding then this understanding is the correct as opposed to the understanding one gets when reading the bible with other materials or bringing in things that are not recorded in the bible.
 

Noose

Senior Member
Apr 18, 2016
4,769
875
113
And yet some still argue men are in authority over women. Even when they're told, there is no such edict, no division due to gender, for those who are reconciled to God their Father by the sacrifice of Himself, as His only Begotten, key word there, Son, so that human identity, race, or gender, is put aside and all who come to Christ are one in Him.

And in both the old and new testaments it is repeatedly said, when the woman and man are wed, as before they were individuals, they are now one. Just as they are when they come together with Christ. No Jew, no Gentile, no Greek, no male, no female, we are all one in Christ.

And this blessing arrive because in the beginning...two people condemned all people to be born ever after to arrive upon God's creation as already removed from their creator, and doomed. Unless or until they find their way to the Savior who is Sovereign, Omniscient, God, and did not, in the beginning, after having created all from and within himself, also created a forbidden tree to put in the paradise He later judged very good, forgive two innocent first born humans of His creation who were seduced by a keener mind, a calculating spirit, that we're told in God's word, cannot act without God's allowance.
Eph 5:22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.
 

Noose

Senior Member
Apr 18, 2016
4,769
875
113
Perhaps it is you that is not keen enough to realize Adam failed in what you call his authority over his wife. And he was the one whom God told directly not to eat. But he did. Perhaps it says in scripture that Adam was not deceived because Adam being with Eve when they encountered the serpent , knowing what God had admonished, the first law of God uttered in the new world creation, to not eat of the fruit the serpent was offering Eve, and Adam did anyway, is cause to say, he was not, could not, have been deceived when he knew God his creator had commanded against what was being offered him now by both the adversary of God and Adam's woman.

Which would indicate Adam wasn't strong enough to be head of the woman. Because not only did he eat when offered the fruit by his wife, hearing the luring to do so from the serpent, being we're told Adam was with her at this time, but he freely chose to ignore his fathers command, and the threat that followed disobedience, and ate. He ate the fruit after Eve did.

What authority then did Adam example? He disobeyed his God over the tempting from God's adversary in serpent form, and his own wife.

He abdicated the responsibility inherent in being in authority of his wife. Adam surrendered it in the presence of the adversary , and at the leading of his wife to do as she did. Having been told what would happen should he disobey, and by God himself. And Adam ate anyway.
Adam sinned. Adam failed. Adam did not lead his wife to obey the command of God that they both may live.
That's not the point and all that does not give women authority over men.
The point was, Eve came from Adam - that will not change. Adam did not relinquish that.
 

Moses_Young

Active member
Sep 15, 2019
200
99
28
What if the husband is supportive of his wife being pastor and tells her to pursue her calling?
Then he is making the same mistake as Adam when Adam allowed Eve to eat the forbidden fruit without preventing her. Adam had the authority to stop her, but he permitted his wife to take the lead in their relationship and be deceived by the snake.

And men in the congregation are fine with her being a pastor?
Most men would be fine with female leadership, speaking from a worldly perspective. It's easier for men and it gives women what they crave. The problem is, it is our sinful natures that crave this hierarchy.

I agree husband is head of household and so I do not see a conflict if he is fine with the wife being pastor or gives his wife leadership roles in the marriage.
Going back to your example of Zipporah. Moses was fine with Zipporah not circumcising her son. After all, why make a mountain out of a mohel, right? Not in God's eyes. God had command circumcision, and whether or not Moses and Zipporah were okay with it, God required obedience. Same with female leadership in church.

I've encountered a handful of female pastors and they are in happy marriages with supportive/proud husbands.
I would question the success of their ministries. Tickling itching ears is not a ministry success, no matter how many ears one tickles.

Also, purpose of any woman is not her husband.
Gen 2:18 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
1 Cor 11:9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

There is no commandment to get married. Paul did not even push marriage except if one has uncontrollable lust.
I agree.

A deacon is not an elder.
Priscilla was a teacher.
She worked with her husband, as an help meet, not as an authority over men.
Acts 18:26 And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
11,929
6,188
113
No proof of what you are saying. There were no such priestesses in Ephesus or any other place, otherwise Paul should have called them out.
That's an argument from silence.

Paul said women (1 Tim 2)/ wives (Eph 5)/ women (1 Cor 11)/ women (1 Cor 14). The word women or wives have a certain meaning, it can not mean individuals- it definitely means women in general.
Greek nouns indicate plurality the same as English nouns. gynaikos in 1 Cor 11:3 is singular, while gynaikas in 1 Timothy 3:11 is plural. The word in 1 Timothy 2:12 is singular, which means your argument is singularly moot.

Rev 2:20, Jesus talks of a particular woman (Jezebel) in the church without generalizing all women. Paul says women in general and wives in general.
As noted above, in many cases Paul uses the singular.

The bible was meant to be read as it is without any other additions.
Where is that in Scripture? Oh... it isn't! That means you're making another argument from silence.

If reading the bible the way it is gives a certain understanding then this understanding is the correct as opposed to the understanding one gets when reading the bible with other materials or bringing in things that are not recorded in the bible.
Thanks for your opinion. I disagree.
 

Noose

Senior Member
Apr 18, 2016
4,769
875
113
That's a non sequitur. 2 Timothy 3:16 says nothing about "teachers".
It says something about scriptures and scriptures says something about teachers.

Do i need to go further so that you can connect?
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
11,929
6,188
113
It says something about scriptures and scriptures says something about teachers.

Do i need to go further so that you can connect?
Streeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeetch.

It's a non sequitur, period.
 

Noose

Senior Member
Apr 18, 2016
4,769
875
113
That's an argument from silence.


Greek nouns indicate plurality the same as English nouns. gynaikos in 1 Cor 11:3 is singular, while gynaikas in 1 Timothy 3:11 is plural. The word in 1 Timothy 2:12 is singular, which means your argument is singularly moot.


As noted above, in many cases Paul uses the singular.


Where is that in Scripture? Oh... it isn't! That means you're making another argument from silence.


Thanks for your opinion. I disagree.
When Paul called out false teachers, he said "some of you" and sometimes called them out by names.

We do not need Greek to understand the bible.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
11,929
6,188
113
When Paul called out false teachers, he said "some of you" and sometimes called them out by names.
Key word: some.

We do not need Greek to understand the bible.
If you mean, "We need the Holy Spirit" then I agree. If you mean "translations are completely adequate" then I disagree.
 

Noose

Senior Member
Apr 18, 2016
4,769
875
113
Streeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeetch.

It's a non sequitur, period.
Okay, still waiting for biblical argument against what Paul said.
 

Noose

Senior Member
Apr 18, 2016
4,769
875
113
Key word: some.


If you mean, "We need the Holy Spirit" then I agree. If you mean "translations are completely adequate" then I disagree.
It is God who gives understanding, even with the wrong translation (i don't believe there's a single perfect translation), God will still enable one to understand. With this respect also, we don't need to understand the culture during that time.
 

Noose

Senior Member
Apr 18, 2016
4,769
875
113
'some' and that's the proper way to say it which both Paul and Jesus used when addressing a grouping/church.
Never did Paul say 'men are false teachers' because of a few individuals who taught falsehoods, but when it came to women and their authority, he said 'women' meaning all women of all time, not some priestesses.