DavidM wrote: >> Let me quote 1 Timothy 2 for you and then quote some >> Torah portions that correspond to it. >> >> 1Ti 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp >> authority over the man, but to be in silence. >> 1Ti 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
Judy wrote: > And what does this have to do with anything > relevant to us? Didn't the prophecy in Joel > and in Acts say that God's Spirit would be > poured out on ALL flesh and that both men and > women would prophesy and speak in other tongues. > How do you do all of that in silence? Do you realize that you are arguing with the words of Paul as written in the Bible? Why are you debating with the Bible? The emphasis is on "exercising authority over the man." If you understand the Jewish mindset and method of teaching, it all makes perfect sense why he brings up "silence." He does not mean absolutely silent, but only in the kind of argumentative exchanges that happen among teachers and prophets digging into the Word of God. I have been involved with churches that allow for this also, so the meaning is perhaps more clear and obvious to me. Most churches, however, are very feminized and men do not function much above the feminine level. When you have feminized assemblies, these passages make no sense because men and women function in the same ways. Women may prophesy, preach, speak in tongues, and sing as long as they do not exercise authority over men. If dialogues ensue in the church in which men teach one another, arguing and passionately expressing their viewpoints, women should be silent in these situations. That's all the passages are saying, and hence Hubert's statement helps us out by saying that women should not tell men what to do, but they should tell the whole world what Jesus did for them. Judy wrote: > Also the gifts Christ gave to the Church when he ascended. > Were those only for men? No. Why do you jump to such conclusions from my quoting the Bible? Judy wrote: > Are you telling me that half the Church must be > in silence and listen to the other half? No. Judy wrote: > Give me a break. Not only that but women were used > in the early Church - from the scriptures themselves > we can find deaconesses, teachers, evangelists, and > apostles who were female and you tell me this is not > contradictory? The passage is not contradictory when we look at the context and understand what is being said. Some try and say that Jesus Christ was a cannibal and taught cannibalism, but they are lifting passages out of context and not seeking to understand the message being conveyed. DavidM wrote: >> Gen 2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the >> fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but >> for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. >> Gen 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall >> upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, >> and closed up the flesh instead thereof; >> Gen 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken >> from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. Judy wrote: > Yes and what is all of the above supposed to prove > in your doctrine David? I am quoting the Torah portion being referenced by Paul in 1 Timothy 2:12-13. I'm only trying to show you that Paul got his thinking from the Torah, and so when he says in 1 Cor. 14 "as saith the Torah" he meant the Torah of Moses known to us as the first five books of the Bible. If you want to discuss what the Torah means in this regard, that is another question. First we have to agree that Paul meant Torah when he said, "as saith the Torah." Judy wrote: > How does this validate the idea that the woman > is supposed to be 'silent'? The point is that Adam was made first, then Eve. Woman was made for man and not man for woman. Therefore, there is an order of authority here just as parents are in authority over children by virtue of them being first. God seeks to maintain that order of man being the head of the woman so that we might understand the Godhead and so that man might better understand his relationship to Christ. In teaching which is interactive, where men interrupt one another and challenge one another, this should be done decently and in order. It should be done man to man, with women being silent. DavidM wrote: >> 1Ti 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman >> being deceived was in the transgression. >> >> Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast >> of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said >> unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat >> of every tree of the garden? >> Gen 3:2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may >> eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: >> Gen 3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the >> midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat >> of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. >> Gen 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall >> not surely die: >> Gen 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat >> thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall >> be as gods, knowing good and evil. >> Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was >> good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, >> and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took >> of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto >> her husband with her; and he did eat. >> >> Gen 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast >> hearkened unto the voice of thy wife Judy wrote: > I hope you are not implying that Adam did the same > as Abraham and messed up by listening to the woman .. > I'm kind of getting the idea that this is what you > are leading up to. I'm just trying to quote the Torah portions which you claimed did not exist. Paul makes a distinction between Adam and Eve in relation to their sin, and he uses this in his argument for why women should not teach in authority over a man, but rather she should learn in silence. DavidM wrote: >> 1Ti 2:15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in >> childbearing, if they continue in faith and >> charity and holiness with sobriety. >> >> Gen 3:16 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. >> >> So when Paul said in 1 Cor. 14, "as also saith the Torah," >> he really meant the Torah and not the oral law of the Rabbi's. Judy wrote: > No DavidM, you've not proved anything here because the > curse prophesied over the woman in Genesis 3:16 is now > null and void through Christ because Christ has redeemed > us from the curse of the law being made a curse for us, > so why would Paul put women back under that pray tell? Paul did not put women back under the curse of the law. You are not following his argument very well. Paul only viewed the first part of Gen. 3:16 as a curse from which women have been set free. The latter part which said, "he shall rule over thee" was a reiteration of the Divine Order that existed prior to the fall. It existed, as Paul explains, because Adam was created first and then Eve, and Eve was created for Adam, as a help meet for him. Judy wrote: > But your wife stands or falls by her own choices, not yours. I respectfully disagree. When we were married, my wife took my name. She no longer exists without me, and I do not exist without her. We are no longer independent of one another. We are one. In our relationship, I am her head just as Christ is my head. That means she submits unto me in the same way that I submit unto Christ. Because she does that, I am responsible for her. If she falls, it will be my fault. Judy wrote: > Should be how you serve your wife. > The Lord is supposed to be leading her. Leading is a form of service. Jesus led the apostles and he was among them as a servant. Yes, the Lord does lead my wife. Our leading her is the same, not mutually exclusive. I don't lead her in anything that I don't hear from God first. DavidM wrote: >> Because Abraham also submitted unto secular government >> and the secular government had penalties for a barren >> wife who did not provide a way for her husband to have >> children. Judy wrote: > How so? What secular government is this? Hammurabi was a contemporary of Abraham and so the Hammurabi code gives us a lot of insight into the mentality of that period of history. More importantly, the Nuzi Tablets of Iraq actually mentions a law which gives a penalty to a barren wife if she did not provide someone, such as her handmaid, by whom her husband could bear a male child. I don't remember exactly what the penalty was right now, but reading these laws is very fascinating and helps us understand how Abraham and Sarah came to do the things that they did. Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
