Did mis-treatment of woman begin with Adam?
- Thread starter JosephsDreams
- Start date
-
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.
And whats wrong with asking how women FEEL about their mistreatment?
Like for example, dinahs fiance being murdered by her own brothers. Its noted that Hamesh LOVED Dinah.
What about the woman who had the discharge of blood for 12 years. Nobody would even touch her. She went to Jesus, touched his cloak and was healed immediately.
What about Leah,given no choice about her marriage to Jacob, who loved Rachel, even while she gave him many sons and each time she gave birth, desperately sought his love.
Or Hannah, also being a second wife, not being able to have children, and being mocked by the first wife, and told she was drunk by her own husband for even praying. Obviously he had no clue how she felt.
Lot saying to the wicked sodomites here have my daughters, they havent known a man. Gee thanks dad.
The woman caught in adultery, sure she was a sinner, but then so were all the men that were wanting to stone her. She was called put in public, but what about the guy she was caught with?
Like for example, dinahs fiance being murdered by her own brothers. Its noted that Hamesh LOVED Dinah.
What about the woman who had the discharge of blood for 12 years. Nobody would even touch her. She went to Jesus, touched his cloak and was healed immediately.
What about Leah,given no choice about her marriage to Jacob, who loved Rachel, even while she gave him many sons and each time she gave birth, desperately sought his love.
Or Hannah, also being a second wife, not being able to have children, and being mocked by the first wife, and told she was drunk by her own husband for even praying. Obviously he had no clue how she felt.
Lot saying to the wicked sodomites here have my daughters, they havent known a man. Gee thanks dad.
The woman caught in adultery, sure she was a sinner, but then so were all the men that were wanting to stone her. She was called put in public, but what about the guy she was caught with?
What's wrong is that it is putting the emphasis on the reaction, rather than on the initial action. Sin is not sin because someone feels that it's sin. Sin is sin because it is inherently contrary to God's will.
The woman with the discharge was not "mistreated". She had a medical condition that, in that culture, rendered her untouchable.
Dinah was raped. It's irrelevant how the man felt about her, and her feelings about him being killed in retaliation do not constitute mistreatment of her.
Leah was mistreated by her father. He could have spoken up at any time in the first seven years, as could she. Instead he pawned her off to a man who had no interest in her. Jacob is not at fault.
Hannah's prayer was misinterpreted by Eli, not by her husband. She responded appropriately, and he relented. No issue. How the other wife treated her is not an issue of mistreatment "of women" but of one woman by another woman.
Lot's actions were foolish; no argument there.
The woman caught in adultery was... caught in ADULTERY, punishable by death. Her feelings are irrelevant.
Overall, it seems to me that you have embraced the social justice warrior mantra regarding feelings. What's wrong with discussing it (in the context of gender relations) is that feelings are completely subjective. How any particular woman would feel in any of those situations is not a reflection only of the situation, but of her culture, experiences, and desires. Further, for the most part, the feelings are not recorded, so you are speculating as to what the women felt. That's no way to build sound doctrine.
The woman with the discharge was not "mistreated". She had a medical condition that, in that culture, rendered her untouchable.
Dinah was raped. It's irrelevant how the man felt about her, and her feelings about him being killed in retaliation do not constitute mistreatment of her.
Leah was mistreated by her father. He could have spoken up at any time in the first seven years, as could she. Instead he pawned her off to a man who had no interest in her. Jacob is not at fault.
Hannah's prayer was misinterpreted by Eli, not by her husband. She responded appropriately, and he relented. No issue. How the other wife treated her is not an issue of mistreatment "of women" but of one woman by another woman.
Lot's actions were foolish; no argument there.
The woman caught in adultery was... caught in ADULTERY, punishable by death. Her feelings are irrelevant.
Overall, it seems to me that you have embraced the social justice warrior mantra regarding feelings. What's wrong with discussing it (in the context of gender relations) is that feelings are completely subjective. How any particular woman would feel in any of those situations is not a reflection only of the situation, but of her culture, experiences, and desires. Further, for the most part, the feelings are not recorded, so you are speculating as to what the women felt. That's no way to build sound doctrine.
Certain women, 3 which is used to indicate the end of the matter could of been all woman 3 mentioned gathered around Jesus ministering to him as they would a husband . it would seem a parable to represent new creatures male and female .with the female us to represent the whole church.
He offered a parable as to how we could understand the parable using the seed and the soil but then seemed to comfort the woman and help them in their anxieties or perhaps miss the meaning hid .
I don't think it was so much that no one would touch her as with leprosy or stay away from women. Leprosy would seem to used for a different purpose other than this parable using the touch of a woman .The touch as the kind where virtue is challenged. Time and time again he used as a parable for "my time is not yet full come" mankind were anxious was he the Christ or should they look for another. The parable comforted them
It would seem Christ spoke or prophesied to her heart, it moved her to touch Christ in a way where he felt virtue go out. The wedding consummation when we all receive of new incorruptible bodies was still ahead . A way of asking the creature to slow down spread the joy go out and spread the good news..... could be tomorrow. .
Luke8 :45-48 Came behind him, and touched the border of his garment: and immediately her issue of blood stanched.
And Jesus said, Who touched me? When all denied, Peter and they that were with him said, Master, the multitude throng thee and press thee, and sayest thou, Who touched me? And Jesus said, Somebody hath touched me: for I perceive that virtue is gone out of me.
And when the woman saw that she was not hid, she came trembling, and falling down before him, she declared unto him before all the people for what cause she had touched him, and how she was healed immediately. And he said unto her, Daughter, be of good comfort: thy faith hath made thee whole; go in peace.
The faith (Christ's) that made her whole; body soul and spirit to go in peace. was the faith that came from hearing God it moved her as Christ worked in her to both will and do his good pleasure.
It would be used in the same way not touch me before the time is used below also . Ruth used to describe the church was a virtuous woman
Ruth 2:9Let thine eyes be on the field that they do reap, and go thou after them: have I not charged the young men that they shall not touch thee? and when thou art athirst, go unto the vessels, and drink of that which the young men have drawn.
He offered a parable as to how we could understand the parable using the seed and the soil but then seemed to comfort the woman and help them in their anxieties or perhaps miss the meaning hid .
I don't think it was so much that no one would touch her as with leprosy or stay away from women. Leprosy would seem to used for a different purpose other than this parable using the touch of a woman .The touch as the kind where virtue is challenged. Time and time again he used as a parable for "my time is not yet full come" mankind were anxious was he the Christ or should they look for another. The parable comforted them
It would seem Christ spoke or prophesied to her heart, it moved her to touch Christ in a way where he felt virtue go out. The wedding consummation when we all receive of new incorruptible bodies was still ahead . A way of asking the creature to slow down spread the joy go out and spread the good news..... could be tomorrow. .
Luke8 :45-48 Came behind him, and touched the border of his garment: and immediately her issue of blood stanched.
And Jesus said, Who touched me? When all denied, Peter and they that were with him said, Master, the multitude throng thee and press thee, and sayest thou, Who touched me? And Jesus said, Somebody hath touched me: for I perceive that virtue is gone out of me.
And when the woman saw that she was not hid, she came trembling, and falling down before him, she declared unto him before all the people for what cause she had touched him, and how she was healed immediately. And he said unto her, Daughter, be of good comfort: thy faith hath made thee whole; go in peace.
The faith (Christ's) that made her whole; body soul and spirit to go in peace. was the faith that came from hearing God it moved her as Christ worked in her to both will and do his good pleasure.
It would be used in the same way not touch me before the time is used below also . Ruth used to describe the church was a virtuous woman
Ruth 2:9Let thine eyes be on the field that they do reap, and go thou after them: have I not charged the young men that they shall not touch thee? and when thou art athirst, go unto the vessels, and drink of that which the young men have drawn.
Garee, I think you're off in left field on this post, on every point you make.
The number 3 is not mentioned in the passage, and is not described anywhere in Scripture as "the end of the matter" (I think you're mixing up Deuteronomy 19:15). Nothing is said about three women. There's no parable mentioned; Jesus wasn't teaching when the woman touched her. Leprosy is not mentioned. There is no mention of Jesus speaking to her heart; He did not know she was there until she touched Him. The text records Jesus saying, "Your faith has made you well", not "My faith has made you well". Ruth is not mentioned in the passage at all.
It's nice when you happen to see connections between diverse parts of Scripture. Force-fitting connections where they don't exist is not a sound practice though.
The number 3 is not mentioned in the passage, and is not described anywhere in Scripture as "the end of the matter" (I think you're mixing up Deuteronomy 19:15). Nothing is said about three women. There's no parable mentioned; Jesus wasn't teaching when the woman touched her. Leprosy is not mentioned. There is no mention of Jesus speaking to her heart; He did not know she was there until she touched Him. The text records Jesus saying, "Your faith has made you well", not "My faith has made you well". Ruth is not mentioned in the passage at all.
It's nice when you happen to see connections between diverse parts of Scripture. Force-fitting connections where they don't exist is not a sound practice though.
-
1
- Show all
Sorry, actually you are wrong all those womens feelings are relevant to God. Its your coldhearted opinion that is irrelevant here.
When Jesus talked about turning joy for mourning, these are feelings and emotions. They are importnat, he says whoever believes in Him living streams will flow...these are tears.
Why is the holy spirit called the 'comforter'? Because He comforts. Why did people divorce? Cos their hearts are hard. How does the holy spirit enter, through a crcumcised heart! How does grace act on a believer.Through a repentent heart! A broken and contrite heart God does not despise.
In heaven what does God do...he wipes every tear from peoples eyes. There shall be no more death, no more sorrow and no more pain.
What hapoened to eve, well God said in SORROW you shall bring forth children. That was part of her punishment and to adam he said in SORROW shall, thou eat of it (the ground) all the days of thy life. This was part of the curse.
Have you ever known sorrow? If you havent known sorrow then good for you! You must know joy then. mary, mother of Jesus knew sorrow her heart was pierced with many sorrows. Dont ever say that feelings are irrelevant to God. If you say that, you dont know what the heart of God is like, for the holy spirit does not want to be grieved.
When Jesus talked about turning joy for mourning, these are feelings and emotions. They are importnat, he says whoever believes in Him living streams will flow...these are tears.
Why is the holy spirit called the 'comforter'? Because He comforts. Why did people divorce? Cos their hearts are hard. How does the holy spirit enter, through a crcumcised heart! How does grace act on a believer.Through a repentent heart! A broken and contrite heart God does not despise.
In heaven what does God do...he wipes every tear from peoples eyes. There shall be no more death, no more sorrow and no more pain.
What hapoened to eve, well God said in SORROW you shall bring forth children. That was part of her punishment and to adam he said in SORROW shall, thou eat of it (the ground) all the days of thy life. This was part of the curse.
Have you ever known sorrow? If you havent known sorrow then good for you! You must know joy then. mary, mother of Jesus knew sorrow her heart was pierced with many sorrows. Dont ever say that feelings are irrelevant to God. If you say that, you dont know what the heart of God is like, for the holy spirit does not want to be grieved.
It would help if you could respond to what I actually wrote instead of your misinterpretation of what I wrote. I said nothing at all about their feelings being irrelevant to God. I also only said "irrelevant" about one woman's feelings in one particular context.
This thread is about the mistreatment of women by men. If you want to discuss feelings further, start a new thread.
As to being coldhearted, I can be sometimes. However, in this case, I'm simply being rational, staying on topic, and using my brain instead of allowing my emotions to rule.
This thread is about the mistreatment of women by men. If you want to discuss feelings further, start a new thread.
As to being coldhearted, I can be sometimes. However, in this case, I'm simply being rational, staying on topic, and using my brain instead of allowing my emotions to rule.
K
What's wrong is that it is putting the emphasis on the reaction, rather than on the initial action. Sin is not sin because someone feels that it's sin. Sin is sin because it is inherently contrary to God's will.
The woman with the discharge was not "mistreated". She had a medical condition that, in that culture, rendered her untouchable.
Dinah was raped. It's irrelevant how the man felt about her, and her feelings about him being killed in retaliation do not constitute mistreatment of her.
Leah was mistreated by her father. He could have spoken up at any time in the first seven years, as could she. Instead he pawned her off to a man who had no interest in her. Jacob is not at fault.
Hannah's prayer was misinterpreted by Eli, not by her husband. She responded appropriately, and he relented. No issue. How the other wife treated her is not an issue of mistreatment "of women" but of one woman by another woman.
Lot's actions were foolish; no argument there.
The woman caught in adultery was... caught in ADULTERY, punishable by death. Her feelings are irrelevant.
Overall, it seems to me that you have embraced the social justice warrior mantra regarding feelings. What's wrong with discussing it (in the context of gender relations) is that feelings are completely subjective. How any particular woman would feel in any of those situations is not a reflection only of the situation, but of her culture, experiences, and desires. Further, for the most part, the feelings are not recorded, so you are speculating as to what the women felt. That's no way to build sound doctrine.
The woman with the discharge was not "mistreated". She had a medical condition that, in that culture, rendered her untouchable.
Dinah was raped. It's irrelevant how the man felt about her, and her feelings about him being killed in retaliation do not constitute mistreatment of her.
Leah was mistreated by her father. He could have spoken up at any time in the first seven years, as could she. Instead he pawned her off to a man who had no interest in her. Jacob is not at fault.
Hannah's prayer was misinterpreted by Eli, not by her husband. She responded appropriately, and he relented. No issue. How the other wife treated her is not an issue of mistreatment "of women" but of one woman by another woman.
Lot's actions were foolish; no argument there.
The woman caught in adultery was... caught in ADULTERY, punishable by death. Her feelings are irrelevant.
Overall, it seems to me that you have embraced the social justice warrior mantra regarding feelings. What's wrong with discussing it (in the context of gender relations) is that feelings are completely subjective. How any particular woman would feel in any of those situations is not a reflection only of the situation, but of her culture, experiences, and desires. Further, for the most part, the feelings are not recorded, so you are speculating as to what the women felt. That's no way to build sound doctrine.
You may have missed the "h" after "24".
Just have to add here that in Lots case he was giving up his daughters because the men were pounding on the door demanding to have sex with the male angels that were staying with Lot. That is how seriously they took homosexuality in those times. Lot offered his daughters instead and begged them not to do such evil. It wasn't a flip thing that he did. That was how serious a sin homosexuality was considered.
-
2
- Show all
K
I see this is an old post but people are still answering so I'll give my ten cents. I don't see anywhere where Adam mistreated his wife. I suppose you could say he blamed her and that was wrong. Other than that I don't see where the Bible indicates he mistreated her. I would say the mistreatment of women has come from a fundamental misunderstanding of the Bible and the way it's preached. The idea of the man being the dominant head of the home with a submissive wife has been poorly taught and used by abusers to cause misery in their wives lives. Many times I've seen this preached too far and women being put under bondage that God never intended. It's sad to see Scripture misused in such a way as to put an undue burden on the wife. Needless to say I've taken a lot of flack for my comments over the years. I have nothing against Godly men leading the home properly. I don't believe in feminism. But I have seen the Bible misused and women abused because of man made ideals. It's terribly sad.
-
3
- Show all
Garee, I think you're off in left field on this post, on every point you make.
The number 3 is not mentioned in the passage, and is not described anywhere in Scripture as "the end of the matter" (I think you're mixing up Deuteronomy 19:15). Nothing is said about three women. There's no parable mentioned; Jesus wasn't teaching when the woman touched her. Leprosy is not mentioned. There is no mention of Jesus speaking to her heart; He did not know she was there until she touched Him. The text records Jesus saying, "Your faith has made you well", not "My faith has made you well". Ruth is not mentioned in the passage at all.
It's nice when you happen to see connections between diverse parts of Scripture. Force-fitting connections where they don't exist is not a sound practice though.
The number 3 is not mentioned in the passage, and is not described anywhere in Scripture as "the end of the matter" (I think you're mixing up Deuteronomy 19:15). Nothing is said about three women. There's no parable mentioned; Jesus wasn't teaching when the woman touched her. Leprosy is not mentioned. There is no mention of Jesus speaking to her heart; He did not know she was there until she touched Him. The text records Jesus saying, "Your faith has made you well", not "My faith has made you well". Ruth is not mentioned in the passage at all.
It's nice when you happen to see connections between diverse parts of Scripture. Force-fitting connections where they don't exist is not a sound practice though.
I don't think any thing in the Bible is put there by accident. Every word has a meaning attached. Some have two meaning. One hidden the(the hidden Manna) other revealed the literal. We walk by faith the unseen not looking to the temporal things..
Luke 8 King James Version (KJV)And it came to pass afterward, that he went throughout every city and village, preaching and shewing the glad tidings of the kingdom of God: and the twelve were with him,And certain women, which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils,And Joanna the wife of Chuza Herod's steward, and Susanna, and many others, which ministered unto him of their substance.And when much people were gathered together, and were come to him out of every city, he spake by a parable:
Mentioning three names to represent all who heard the parables. Three represents much people the end of the matter. The word virtue is the key to understanding the parable
A series of parables of God spreading his seed moving men as sign . Signs point back to the unseen work .
The key is God worked in the woman by faith giving faith she previously did not have to her to move her to touch him as a sign that faith was working in the woman (not of herself.) She did not touch herself ..Virtue went out, it was before the time for the wedding to be consummated in our new bodies. . People are quick to be of the number.
John 7:6 Then Jesus said unto them, My time is not yet come: but your time is alway ready.
Numbers are not mentioned in the passage about the woman whose discharge was healed... at all. Therefore they are irrelevant to understanding that passage. The three women mentioned earlier in the chapter have nothing to do with this story.
It's a narrative passage, not a parable. There is no hidden meaning. When you misunderstand the genre of literature in the passage, how can your conclusion be correct? I strongly recommend that you read the book, "How to Read the Bible For All It's Worth" by Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart. They discuss genres within Scripture and how to interpret each kind.
It's a narrative passage, not a parable. There is no hidden meaning. When you misunderstand the genre of literature in the passage, how can your conclusion be correct? I strongly recommend that you read the book, "How to Read the Bible For All It's Worth" by Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart. They discuss genres within Scripture and how to interpret each kind.
-
1
- Show all
Three woman's names were mentioned to represent all that heard the parable as the ground work . Possibly because woman literal represent the new creation, the whole church, the bride Christ.(Jew and gentile, male and female) She is made up of many lively stone that does form the spiritual house of God. Three is used to represent the end of the mater in many parables.
Virtue was used before the time of the wedding consumation. A lesson... be patient walk by faith.
Virtue was used before the time of the wedding consumation. A lesson... be patient walk by faith.