Women will be saved through Childbearing, if

[garee]

Nobody's defending bad male leadership.
The issue is women are not allowed by God to be in leadership.

If we are to call know man one earth Teacher or master as law. Even the Son of man refused to stands in theholy place of the unsen father as the teaching authority .

“But you must not be called ‘Teacher.’ You are all equal as brothers and sisters. You have only one Teacher. And don’t call anyone on earth ‘Father.’ You have one Father. He is in heaven. And you should not be called ‘Master.’ You have only one Master, the Messiah. Whoever serves you like a servant is the greatest among you. Mathew 23: 8-10

How would that affect calling a woman teacher? Remember we offer the word and he who is not served by human hands causes the growth id any. The idea that man must be the head teacher does not seem to have any biblical support. There must of been a specific reason . Like what kind of woman is not permitted to prophecy the new tongue the gospel ?

Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.1 Corinthians 14: 34-35

Which law if not the one in the garden the law of a virtuous woman submitting to a loving husband . The government of God. The church submits to her husband Christ.

Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. Genesis 3: 16

Woman is saved by bearing male children .She can rule over them teaching them how to love wife's like Christ Loved us. If they do learn they will get a extension of their loving Mom. The home schoolmarm .

 

[garee]

WHY DID GOD PUNISH MIRIAM & NOT AARON WHEN THEY SPOKE AGAINST MOSES , VERSE IN NUMBERS 12:2 SHOWS US IT WAS HER SAYING THAT GOD SPOKE THROUGH THEM . I THINK IT WAS SHE WAS TRYING TO TAKE A MAN PLACE , GOD BLESS AS HE SEES FIT .

It would seem he was enforcing the law of a virtuous woman( Geneisis 3:16) .Remember the woman represent the whole church called the bride. The church the temporal seen she submits to her loving husband, the unseen eternal .

leadership takes two. Christ our loving Husband and His bride the church. The one that willing submits to her husbands loving authority. The government of God a peace that surpasses all human understanding .We walk by faith the unseen .

 

[Whispered]

have a look at Numbers ch. 30

Have a look at what has already been posted.
WHY THE LAW DOES NOT REFER TO SCRIPTURE


The testimony of the Old Testament. The phrase, "just as the law also says" is not supported by the Old Testament. It is the major weakness of the view that 1 Cor. 14:34-35 represents Paul's declarative statement that women are not permitted to speak. None of these commentators have adequately discussed or resolved how the words, Let the women keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak are supported by the Old Testament verses they cite. The Genesis citations quoted by these scholars (Gen. 1:26, 2:21, 3:16) have nothing to do with denying women the right to speak in church. The reason given in verse 34 that women are not permitted to speak relates directly to the phrase, "just as the law also says." Only the phrase: "but let them subject themselves" is a possible allusion to Gen. 3:16. But the subject phrase, "just as the law also says," contradicts Paul's known teachings that we have been liberated from the law (Rom. 3:28; 6:14, 7:16, 8:2; Gal 3:11, 13, 4:5, 5:18, etc.).

[bold is my addition to this excerpt]
We have been liberated from the law. Since Paul claims that we have been liberated from the law, how could he appeal to it? Paul also fought against the religious zealots of his day who tried to impose the requirements of the Old Testament's written and oral laws on New Testament believers in Christ. These verses cannot represent the apostle Paul's inspired words. Why? The reason is there is nothing written in the canon of Scripture from which Paul could have quoted to support such a declaration. Such an appeal would also contradict Paul's previously stated position in 1 Corinthians that women can pray and prophesy in church.


Paul does not refer to written Scripture in this manner. In the entire epistle of 1 Corinthians, whenever Paul quotes from and specially uses the term "law" (meaning written Scripture) he does so with specific intent, focus, and stylistic writing. For example, in 1 Cor. 9:8-9 Paul writes, Does not the law also say the same? For it is written in the law of Moses: "You shall not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain." After referring to the law as saying something, Paul tells us that it is written and immediately quotes Deut 25:4 verbatim. Also in 1 Cor. 14:21 after Paul writes, "In the Law it is written," he immediately quotes from Isaiah 28:11-12. Again, in 1 Cor. 4:6 where Paul generally refers to Scripture, he tells the Corinthians to learn through us the meaning of the saying "Do not go beyond what is written." In every case when Paul specially refers to Scripture, he says it is written (1 Cor. 1:19, 1:31, 2:9, 3:19, 10:7, 15:45) and consistently quotes from the Old Testament to prove his point.


However, in 1 Corinthians 14:34 the passage simply states just as the Law also says without reference to it being written. Why would Paul suddenly change his consistent writing style in this verse only? Why doesn't Paul even say it is written or even quote from the Old Testament as he has previously done in every instance throughout this epistle? Why? The reason is more likely these are not Paul's words. Either Paul was quoting a non-biblical source, such as a slogan or rabbinic saying or verses 34-35 represent an interpolation, an alteration of Scripture. In either interpretive option, these words did not originate with Paul. "




CONCLUSION
Verses 34-35 do not prohibit women from speaking in the church in either pulpit ministry, teaching, preaching, praying, prophesying, or any other speaking function. These verses represent a quotation, which is the most plausible and correct interpretation. Paul is quoting a saying from the Oral Law of the Jews which is not intended to be understood as the writer's original declaration. The evidence is compelling, diverse, and objective. This view also allows for the natural flow of thought to remain uninterrupted with verses "34-35" noted as a quotation and a rebuke beginning in verse 36. Paul also has no need to specifically address women as the only cause of "interrupting the service" as some scholars suggest. Paul's conclusion in verse 40 is more than adequate to tell the Corinthians that both men and women must be careful to minister in the gifts of the Spirit in an orderly fashion.

The focus of Chapter 14 is on the proper use of spiritual gifts, tongues and prophecy. Paul's closing exhortation, beginning in verse 39, is a fitting conclusion: Therefore, my brothers and sisters, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak in tongues. But let all things be done properly and in an orderly manner.

 

[Dino246]

Since I'm not allowed to use the Bible to defend what I say I guess I will never deal with it properly for you.

Wow. Any other ridiculous comments you'd like to add?

 

[posthuman]

Have a look at what has already been posted.
WHY THE LAW DOES NOT REFER TO SCRIPTURE

dunno where you get these commentaries but IMO they are ridiculous and unsupportable.

Since when did Paul ever refer to unscriptural human traditions and commandments of men as "the law"??
Have a look at Colossians, for example; this apostle certainly knows the difference, knows it well, and is very conscious of the importance of knowing the difference. It's a rubbish argument.

1 Corinthians 14:34 says 'the law' teaches submission of women - v. 35 indicates we're talking about married women in particular in submission to their husband's in the congregation. I think it's foolish to to answer that with, well Paul didn't know what he was talking about. IMO it's wise instead to respond, where is this he's referring to? So, start making a list. We've got Genesis 1-3, and Numbers 30 to consider. Where else?

 

[posthuman]

Therefore, my brothers and sisters, desire earnestly to prophesy

Yeah when I saw that in NIV I thought well look.
So i looked. Greek just says "brothers"
Seems to me the KJV guys have a good case here.

Do I believe women legitimately can, do and should prophesy? Absolutely, 100%.

All the same, the Bible does not actually say 'brothers and sisters' here, it says 'brothers' - therefore, using 'sisters' as an argument for a position about the meaning of this chapter is a bad argument; that isn't actually what it says: it's an argument from vapor.

This is not easy to understand. It takes finding out. Calling scripture false, butchering Genesis 3, appealing to mistranslations, supposing Paul thinks traditions of men are the law of God... these are not good ways to arrive at the truth, IMO.

 

[Whispered]

Yeah when I saw that in NIV I thought well look.
So i looked. Greek just says "brothers"
Seems to me the KJV guys have a good case here.

Do I believe women legitimately can, do and should prophesy? Absolutely, 100%.

All the same, the Bible does not actually say 'brothers and sisters' here, it says 'brothers' - therefore, using 'sisters' as an argument for a position about the meaning of this chapter is a bad argument; that isn't actually what it says: it's an argument from vapor.

This is not easy to understand. It takes finding out. Calling scripture false, butchering Genesis 3, appealing to mistranslations, supposing Paul thinks traditions of men are the law of God... these are not good ways to arrive at the truth, IMO.

The Greek word for "brothers" is, Adelphos .
The NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon
Strong's Number: 80

Browse Lexicon ​

Original WordWord Origin
adelfoßfrom (1) (as a connective particle) and delphus (the womb)
Transliterated WordTDNT Entry
Adelphos1:144,22
Phonetic SpellingParts of Speech
ad-el-fos' Noun Masculine
Definition

1. a brother, whether born of the same two parents or only of the same father or mother
2. having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people, or countryman
3. any fellow or man
4. a fellow believer, united to another by the bond of affection
5. an associate in employment or office
6. brethren in Christ
   1. his brothers by blood
   2. all men
   3. apostles
   4. Christians, as those who are exalted to the same heavenly place

NAS Word Usage - Total: 343
believing husband 1, brethren 170, brethren* 13, brother 111, brother's 8, brothers 40


That there were female prophets in the old testament says there would also be those who were found in the new. And indeed Paul knew of them. Philips daughters as one example.
As for the stretch to make that passage that uses the word brothers to include sisters within it, I wouldn't agree with that given Paul said we are all one in Christ Jesus. There is no male nor female. For Paul to have recognized that and then we challenge that he meant that oneness did not apply in matters of prophecy, is the stretch.

 

[Whispered]

dunno where you get these commentaries but IMO they are ridiculous and unsupportable.

Since when did Paul ever refer to unscriptural human traditions and commandments of men as "the law"??
Have a look at Colossians, for example; this apostle certainly knows the difference, knows it well, and is very conscious of the importance of knowing the difference. It's a rubbish argument.

1 Corinthians 14:34 says 'the law' teaches submission of women - v. 35 indicates we're talking about married women in particular in submission to their husband's in the congregation. I think it's foolish to to answer that with, well Paul didn't know what he was talking about. IMO it's wise instead to respond, where is this he's referring to? So, start making a list. We've got Genesis 1-3, and Numbers 30 to consider. Where else?

That particular article that you're berating is written by someone with more credentials than either one of us.
But at least I know now that you didn't read it. I don't know why you comment on something you have not the respect to read, then think that winging it while lobbing insults toward what you didn't read makes what you chose not to read incredible.

 

[Judges1318]

Wow. Any other ridiculous comments you'd like to add?

Just one:

You must have forgotten that we're not allowed to use scripture that is man's opinion not the inspired word of God.

 

[Judges1318]

Yeah when I saw that in NIV I thought well look.
So i looked. Greek just says "brothers"
Seems to me the KJV guys have a good case here.

Do I believe women legitimately can, do and should prophesy? Absolutely, 100%.

I almost purposely used a translation that retained the 'brothers' but I decided not to because I agree that when Paul says to prophesy, etc. he is including women, not excluding them. The rest of scripture shows us they are not prohibited from doing that. The mistake being made in this thread is the things women can do are being confused with what women can not do, which is hold an office of authority in the church.

 

[posthuman]

The Greek word for "brothers" is, Adelphos .
The NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon
Strong's Number: 80

Browse Lexicon ​

Original WordWord Origin
adelfoßfrom (1) (as a connective particle) and delphus (the womb)
Transliterated WordTDNT Entry
Adelphos1:144,22
Phonetic SpellingParts of Speech
ad-el-fos' Noun Masculine
Definition

1. a brother, whether born of the same two parents or only of the same father or mother
2. having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people, or countryman
3. any fellow or man
4. a fellow believer, united to another by the bond of affection
5. an associate in employment or office
6. brethren in Christ
   1. his brothers by blood
   2. all men
   3. apostles
   4. Christians, as those who are exalted to the same heavenly place

NAS Word Usage - Total: 343
believing husband 1, brethren 170, brethren* 13, brother 111, brother's 8, brothers 40

yeah like i said, the text actually says "brothers" not "brothers and sisters" - that's interpretive in NIV ((et al)) not literal.

thanks for confirming.

 

[Mii]

As far as “saved by child bearing”, you should investigate the word. It means saved, but also means made whole. Perhaps the translation could use some buffering, or the love and motherly instincts brought about by childbirth, is conducive for the Spirit, explaining the subsequent words.

I don't have the inclination to read through the entire thread, but this mirrors my view on the general direction that this verse takes me.

I've seen more than one mother almost seem to be "completed" by her child and seen attributes that I had not seen previously. Positive attributes that show redeeming qualities. Not that they had none before exactly, I'm not saying that. Just that some of the cruelest, vile, and wicked people treat their children differently than anyone else. It's their soft spot, a salvation of sorts in the human usage of the word.


Redeeming and saved are uniquely aligned words with the kinsman redeemer concept.


Or consider a sports game with one team thrashing another, a star player was delayed but finally arrived. It was hailed as the team's salvation.

I don't particularly care for using salvation toward human concepts but that is one possible understanding.

Or "saving grace".



No, I don't think this applies to salvation in the biblical sense at all. Which would throw out many other tangential debates. Excepting the line of the Messiah and how that fulfills prophecy. Certainly the genealogy is important.

I have no clue how in the first page this related to women pastors though.

 

[posthuman]

I almost purposely used a translation that retained the 'brothers' but I decided not to because I agree that when Paul says to prophesy, etc. he is including women, not excluding them. The rest of scripture shows us they are not prohibited from doing that. The mistake being made in this thread is the things women can do are being confused with what women can not do, which is hold an office of authority in the church.

it's a mistake to think that because a person is trying to honor what the scriptures say on this topic that they're being misogynist. it's a mistake to do all kinds of gymnastics to try to make it not say what it says, and it's a mistake to reject it as purely the apostle's unenlightened opinion or a strictly local, cultural issue. Paul appeals to scripture to justify what he's teaching ((contrary to whoever's commentary was re-posted here, he doesn't always give direct quotes when he does this, for ex. Romans 3:21)) not to 'popular wisdom' or custom or personal sentiment or doctrines of men. IMO the very reason 'as the law says' is in 1 Cor. 14:34 is in fact to cut off such accusations, to assert that he's not pulling this out of thin air.

i haven't even stated an opinion on the matter, except to defend that scripture really says what scripture says. i don't believe these things are accidental or mistaken, but that deep truths underlie them - and i don't believe trying to sort out how to dismiss them is the right course of action to understand those truths. God really did make mankind male and female, the man first and then the woman, and He really did make a distinction and ordain a certain relationship between us. it doesn't do us any good to have fine philosophies if they aren't based in reality.

 

[posthuman]

I've seen more than one mother almost seem to be "completed" by her child and seen attributes that I had not seen previously. Positive attributes that show redeeming qualities. Not that they had none before exactly, I'm not saying that. Just that some of the cruelest, vile, and wicked people treat their children differently than anyone else. It's their soft spot, a salvation of sorts in the human usage of the word.

it's amazing how completely and immediately a person's whole life can change when they have a child, isn't it?

♥

 

[posthuman]

That particular article that you're berating is written by someone with more credentials than either one of us.

oh, we're respecting persons now?
it really doesn't matter what kind of 'credentials' anyone has when they are wrong.
it's unnecessary to go through an entire argument point-by-point when the foundation of it is refuted.

As for the stretch to make that passage that uses the word brothers to include sisters within it, I wouldn't agree with that given Paul said we are all one in Christ Jesus. There is no male nor female. For Paul to have recognized that and then we challenge that he meant that oneness did not apply in matters of prophecy, is the stretch.

this is the same Paul who wrote that their is neither male nor female in Christ. if you're suggesting again that he's self-contradictory why do you cite him for evidence to plead your case?
i believe he knows what he's saying. instead of trying to argue that 1 Corinthians & Timothy are apostolic brain-farts maybe you ought to look into why he would teach these things knowing full well that in the Spirit there isn't distinction.
there is another Greek word, anthropos, meaning mankind in general, as distinct from other creatures - found in 1 Cor. 14:2 for example. it's not as though he doesn't have the vocabulary to use a word that distinguishes species rather than distinguishing gender. he uses both in the same chapter.

 

[IFOLLOWHIM]

I know of a Wesyln Methodist church in my community that I attend on occasion that it's primary members are women.
Their male pastor died in service to the congregation,for more than 6 months their leadership didn't send them another male pastor.

Guess who held the church together in the community.....the women most 50 and upwards in age.

They maybe have 6 to 10 men who attend. The women taught all members every Sunday,kept the finances,paid the bills,helped the community. If they had not their leadership would have closed their church down!


What or whom God calls let us not disavow!

 

[Moses_Young]

it's a mistake to think that because a person is trying to honor what the scriptures say on this topic that they're being misogynist.

This is very true. If it is misogyny to believe women cannot be pastors, it would likewise follow that it is misandry to believe that males cannot give birth. Such thinking opens the door to all manner of abominations. That we all are equal in Christ clearly doesn't mean we operate outside our God-given roles, which exclude women from pastoring as they exclude men from giving birth.

God has clearly created a natural order, and the woman is to submit to the man, as the Church is to submit to Christ. I would argue any other view of such clear scriptures comes from the evil one, and dooms the deceived one to repeat the same error that brought sin into the world in the first place.

 

[Tinkerbell725]

We are not

Are we rightly able to presume that? The Book of 2nd John tells us that the elect lady had children. Were she a widow I think we would read that there. Were this address to her attention alone, perhaps this is why her husband is not brought into it. The messaging is for her.

What is notable in the Book of 2nd John is interestingly enough that which puts to right the false teachings we may encounter today as pertains to our Lord. Those who say He was not divine, but a man imbued with special powers by God. Which is wholly, holy, false.
See here:
Walking in Truth and Love
4 I rejoiced greatly to find some of your children walking in the truth, just as we were commanded by the Father. 5 And now I ask you, dear lady—not as though I were writing you a new commandment, but the one we have had from the beginning—that we love one another. 6 And this is love, that we walk according to his commandments; this is the commandment, just as you have heard from the beginning, so that you should walk in it. 7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist.

The elect lady was not a pastor. She was just helping the real pastors who are incharge in teaching right doctrines. There is only one woman pastor in the Bible and she is called Jezebel. Those who listen to Jezebel will have tribulation. Her children will die.


Rev 2:20-26 KJV


Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.

And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not.

Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds.

And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.

But unto you I say, and unto the rest in Thyatira, as many as have not this doctrine, and which have not known the depths of Satan, as they speak; I will put upon you none other burden.

But that which ye have already hold fast till I come.

And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:

 

[Tinkerbell725]

I know of a Wesyln Methodist church in my community that I attend on occasion that it's primary members are women.
Their male pastor died in service to the congregation,for more than 6 months their leadership didn't send them another male pastor.

Guess who held the church together in the community.....the women most 50 and upwards in age.

They maybe have 6 to 10 men who attend. The women taught all members every Sunday,kept the finances,paid the bills,helped the community. If they had not their leadership would have closed their church down!


What or whom God calls let us not disavow!

There is no issue if women teach fellow women in Church. The issue if a woman teaches or have authority (power) over men in Church setting. Because it is shameful according the Bible and it may lead to something like fornication as the Bible said in Revelation regarding the woman pastor, Jezebel.

 

[posthuman]

the Bible actually states that the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets

Meaning, a prophet is able to shut his or her mouth when appropriate.

1 Corinthians 14:29-32
Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge. But if [anything] is revealed to another who sits by, let the first keep silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, that all may learn and all may be encouraged. And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.

What, you thought it meant a prophet has editing and revision authority over the message God speaks through them?