Women will be saved through Childbearing, if
- Thread starter JohnR7
- 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.
No, the problem is not in the translation, but rather in one's perception that 'head of woman' can only mean some kind of dictatorial privilege that man has over a woman.
I'll try to be sensitive, but I know that a woman who has been abused by a man, especially a man in authority, will most likely only be able to view these scriptures from the bias of men only being insensitive, chauvinistic dictators when in fact no such suggestion of male chauvinism exists in those passages. I know in our day and age it's hard to imagine that a man being head of woman can't possibly mean anything else but the man being a chauvinistic pig. But I assure you, it doesn't have to mean that.
I'll try to be sensitive, but I know that a woman who has been abused by a man, especially a man in authority, will most likely only be able to view these scriptures from the bias of men only being insensitive, chauvinistic dictators when in fact no such suggestion of male chauvinism exists in those passages. I know in our day and age it's hard to imagine that a man being head of woman can't possibly mean anything else but the man being a chauvinistic pig. But I assure you, it doesn't have to mean that.
what's different?
you make it sound like 'Paul's church at Corinth' was a church of Paul, not a church of Christ??
and overall - you're saying Paul was wrong, aren't you?
you make it sound like 'Paul's church at Corinth' was a church of Paul, not a church of Christ??
and overall - you're saying Paul was wrong, aren't you?
-
2
- Show all
Actually Adam was with Eve when she encountered the serpent. And since God gave his commandment to Adam, while Adam was with Eve when she encountered the serpent that tempted her to eat of that which was forbidden, and both she and then Adam did eat of that which was forbidden, it can be said that both were deceived by the serpent because being together at that encounter, they both did eat.
However, because Adam was told by God not to eat, and while Adam nor Eve did not possess the capacity to comprehend obedience, because they did not possess the knowledge of good/ obedience and evil/disobedience , as yet, that is why we are told in the New Testament that it was by Adam that sin entered the world.
Because while Eve also did not possess the knowledge of good/obedience and evil/disobedience, Adam was directly in contact with God when God gave is instruction to not eat of that particular tree.
The argument can be hashed out to the end of time, Adam wasn't deceived, this is Paul's claim, Adam was deceived when he was with Eve when she was being persuaded by the serpent to eat, being if it was persuasive enough for Eve to eat and Adam then did too, knowing what God ha told him, then Adam was also deceived by the serpent because rather than stop Eve from eating he himself did also eat.
What is the issue really is, it was the man that was called responsible for sin entering the world. Not Eve. Adam was held responsible because he was with Eve, as Genesis 3 tells us, and chose to eat what she offered, rather than stop her from eating and then refusing to eat himself.
Adam was also blamed as the one by which sin entered this world because Eve was not there when God spoke to Adam and told him not to eat.
This whole adventure is why people think a man is to be head over the woman. That idea fails however, when Adam failed to be head over Eve as he was the one that was told directly by God what not to do in the garden. And rather than lead the woman toward the directive of God, he himself abandoned what God had told him and ate at Eve's offering.
Eve had an excuse. She was naive. Adam did not. He was told by God what not to do and did it anyway. That doesn't make a man worthy of being in headship over a woman.
However, because Adam was told by God not to eat, and while Adam nor Eve did not possess the capacity to comprehend obedience, because they did not possess the knowledge of good/ obedience and evil/disobedience , as yet, that is why we are told in the New Testament that it was by Adam that sin entered the world.
Because while Eve also did not possess the knowledge of good/obedience and evil/disobedience, Adam was directly in contact with God when God gave is instruction to not eat of that particular tree.
The argument can be hashed out to the end of time, Adam wasn't deceived, this is Paul's claim, Adam was deceived when he was with Eve when she was being persuaded by the serpent to eat, being if it was persuasive enough for Eve to eat and Adam then did too, knowing what God ha told him, then Adam was also deceived by the serpent because rather than stop Eve from eating he himself did also eat.
What is the issue really is, it was the man that was called responsible for sin entering the world. Not Eve. Adam was held responsible because he was with Eve, as Genesis 3 tells us, and chose to eat what she offered, rather than stop her from eating and then refusing to eat himself.
Adam was also blamed as the one by which sin entered this world because Eve was not there when God spoke to Adam and told him not to eat.
This whole adventure is why people think a man is to be head over the woman. That idea fails however, when Adam failed to be head over Eve as he was the one that was told directly by God what not to do in the garden. And rather than lead the woman toward the directive of God, he himself abandoned what God had told him and ate at Eve's offering.
Eve had an excuse. She was naive. Adam did not. He was told by God what not to do and did it anyway. That doesn't make a man worthy of being in headship over a woman.
what's different?
you make it sound like 'Paul's church at Corinth' was a church of Paul, not a church of Christ??
and overall - you're saying Paul was wrong, aren't you?
you make it sound like 'Paul's church at Corinth' was a church of Paul, not a church of Christ??
and overall - you're saying Paul was wrong, aren't you?
As to the
, that's a red herring, as you well know.I see you did not even understand the logical point I made. You're free to not agree with any point I make, logical or not, but I'm saying I don't think you even got what I said to even agree or disagree with it. You would not have said, "Paul doesn't introduce the subject of pastoral authority anywhere in that chapter" if you had understood the logical point I was making.
what's different?
you make it sound like 'Paul's church at Corinth' was a church of Paul, not a church of Christ??
and overall - you're saying Paul was wrong, aren't you?
you make it sound like 'Paul's church at Corinth' was a church of Paul, not a church of Christ??
and overall - you're saying Paul was wrong, aren't you?
what's different? In the old HE wrote it on stone witch was the commandments .& the new HE writes it the commandments on our hearts ,GOD bless
you make it sound like 'Paul's church at Corinth' was a church of Paul, not a church of Christ??
and overall - you're saying Paul was wrong, aren't you?
you make it sound like 'Paul's church at Corinth' was a church of Paul, not a church of Christ??
and overall - you're saying Paul was wrong, aren't you?
I'm saying what the Bible says. Paul founded those churches in Corinth and did speak to them as their manager. Maybe you should read the Epistle to the Corinthians so as to understand.
As to the, that's a red herring, as you well know.
As to the
, that's a red herring, as you well know.
why?
how are we different than Corinth?
you're saying what he told them is right, is not right for us. was he wrong or is something fundamentally different about us as human believers in 2020 compared to 60AD ?
why would you say we're not 'the church of Paul' ?
does w/e preacher get to establish principles for w/e church, all of it being not necessarily true, but we abide by it because of whoever is our 'manager' ?
or is @bud62 right to say, what is for that church, is for the church, because the church is the church?
do you think different churches can have different truths and they're all valid?