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
24,555
13,320
113
They both represent, at the very least, a compromise of the plain words of scripture.
As you may know from scripture, uncalled and unqualified people wanting to be in positions of authority in the congregation of God's people is not new.
The connection between the two is tenuous. There is no need to imply a causal connection between them.
 
Nov 16, 2019
3,441
860
113
Sadly these translations portray an arrogance which facilitates a chauvinistic and hard-hearted attitude, something which God does not have towards women.
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.
 
Jan 4, 2020
1,506
266
83
66
washburn Tn
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.
GOD just give the man a place & the woman a place ,we just need to obey HIM , for HE is our GOD .
 

Whispered

Well-known member
Aug 17, 2019
4,551
2,229
113
www.christiancourier.com
it means that, if Paul was wrong. is Paul wrong? there, in scripture?
otherwise, it was for that people in that day, but not for us? why not now, and us? what's different?
Well, for the obvious reason, we're not members of Paul's church in Corinth.
And lastly, as should be obvious, we are Christian and follow Christ. We are not Pauline and follow Paul.
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
36,530
13,098
113
Well, for the obvious reason, we're not members of Paul's church in Corinth.
what's different?


And lastly, as should be obvious, we are Christian and follow Christ. We are not Pauline and follow Paul.
you make it sound like 'Paul's church at Corinth' was a church of Paul, not a church of Christ?? :eek:

and overall - you're saying Paul was wrong, aren't you?
 

Whispered

Well-known member
Aug 17, 2019
4,551
2,229
113
www.christiancourier.com
The woman was deceived , bud adam wasn't he didn't want to live with out eve . & chose eve over GOD . HE knew that he would haft to die .
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.
 

Whispered

Well-known member
Aug 17, 2019
4,551
2,229
113
www.christiancourier.com
what's different?




you make it sound like 'Paul's church at Corinth' was a church of Paul, not a church of Christ?? :eek:

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 :eek:, that's a red herring, as you well know.
 
Nov 16, 2019
3,441
860
113
I haven't said anything about 1 Corinthians 14:34-36 being a cultural issue.

Paul doesn't introduce the subject of pastoral authority anywhere in that chapter, so you must be inserting it to suit your position. Further, the statement, "women must be silent in the churches" is not qualified at all, but rather is an absolute statement, meaning that you cannot rightly limit it to speaking in the role of pastoral authority. Either women are allowed to speak, period, or they are not allowed to speak, period. If it's a quotation that Paul rejects, it makes perfect sense in context. Otherwise, it clashes.


No, it does not "have to" mean that at all. First, the word "authority" is not in the Greek, and the word "pastoral" is not in either the Greek or the English. The key word translated "assume authority" (or worse, "usurp authority") is authentein, which appears in only that one place in the Greek Scriptures. It had a wide range of different meanings in classical Greek writing, everything from 'claim authorship' to 'murder'.


I agree that the Bible usually explains itself, which is why I reject the complementarian view of Paul's letters. Logic is great, and I employ it frequently. Please don't make the error of assuming that you are more logical in your reasoning than I am in mine.
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.
 
Jan 4, 2020
1,506
266
83
66
washburn Tn
what's different?




you make it sound like 'Paul's church at Corinth' was a church of Paul, not a church of Christ?? :eek:

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?? :eek:

and overall - you're saying Paul was wrong, aren't you?
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
24,555
13,320
113
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.
I understood it just fine. I don't need to agree or disagree; I don't think your point is valid in the first place.
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
36,530
13,098
113
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 :eek:, that's a red herring, as you well know.
you're saying what Paul said to them does not apply to us.

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?
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
36,530
13,098
113
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,
so you definitely are saying you think Paul is wrong? the scripture, the epistle to Timothy is false?
 
Nov 16, 2019
3,441
860
113
I understood it just fine. I don't need to agree or disagree; I don't think your point is valid in the first place.
Uh, no you didn't. Really.
Seriously, you would not have said what you did if you understood my point.
 
Nov 16, 2019
3,441
860
113
"the head of the woman is man"

Conclusion: Man is not head of the woman.