Why do you think men are called to minister?

[visionary]

Is it because women are already spiritual and it is the guys who need the practice?

Is it because guys are the example of Yeshua and we are not to think God is female?

Is it is because..... let's hear why God wanted men in the ministry.

[Lulav]

There are women in ministry too. :) Aren't we all called to minister?

But I believe only men should be shepherds...............

[visionary]

Not a single woman is called in minister in the temple.

[ChavaK]

Why do you think men are called to minister?

Is it because women are already spiritual and it is the guys who need the practice?


Women are innately more spiritual than men and traditionally
have little time for ministerial duties due to the care of
the family.

[Lulav]

Not a single woman is called in minister in the temple. You didn't specify the temple visionary. :) Nor specify Levites.

However we do see a woman doing ministry work in the temple complex right after Yeshua's birth, and she wasn't even bat Levi . ;)


Her name was Hannah.

If you only want to know about the priesthood, that's easy, most of the jobs surrounding the temple required some good manly testosterone fed muscle. :D You try throwing around sheep all day! Besides, woman did the ministering to the family at home. :angel:

[stone]

Is it because women are already spiritual and it is the guys who need the practice?

Is it because guys are the example of Yeshua and we are not to think God is female?

Is it is because..... let's hear why God wanted men in the ministry.

Why are there prophetesses then if men are only called?

[visionary]

Why would the Lord choose men to minister in the temple? Why are they the only priests?

[AnneSally]

Is it because women are already spiritual and it is the guys who need the practice?



^_^

[Ivy]

All righteeeeeee........Let's get something straight. Adam was responsible for Adam's sin, and Eve was responsible for Eve's sin. Let's not get involved in a codependent fingerpointing gender-bashing thread, I implore you! There's no grace in that kind of talk.

Okay Vis, back to your question. I don't know what kind of ministry you're referring to, since there are many kinds.

But I do think there is wisdom in men only being pastors , the reason being that it's a very punishing job, being a pastor. I should know, my dad was one. We as women tend to take things personally--like criticism, especially :sorry: --and criticism is a constant for a pastor. We also tend to engineer things to avoid being criticized, and that may not always be the best strategy for actual spiritual growth in people.

However, we make contributions that men cannot make, and we need to bless God for making us the way we are and enabling us to be a blessing.

My two cents. :)

[visionary]

awww. the first decent presentation so far.. so you think a woman can't handle criticism and therefore should be in a pastorial position.

Actually since God started the temple ministry and we now have church/synagogue ministries... the preference for men in the pulpit is common.

[Ivy]

Well, I think we tend to take things personally much more so than men, and there are *so many opportunities to take things personally in the pastoral position, that a person could be spinning his/her tires out all the time.

Plus........I hate public speaking! :eek: :D

I'd rather be put in front of a firing squad. :D

[visionary]

Is that the reason why God put men in charge of the ministry? because we (females) don't like public speaking.

[AnneSally]

Is that the reason why God put men in charge of the ministry? because we (females) don't like public speaking.


Joyce Meyer loves public speaking.:D

[Ivy]

She does indeed, and she's good at it. :D She's one of my all-time favorites....she's like a pep-talker for women. She talks to me like my mom should have, like buck up girl! I like her. :)

But I STILL hate public-speaking, and all the tea in Yuanshen's country shan't make me change my mind, no indeedy. :D :D

[AnneSally]

Yup, Joyce is pretty cool and gutsy, I like her a lot too.:thumbsup:

[AnneSally]

But I STILL hate public-speaking, and all the tea in Yuanshen's country shan't make me change my mind, no indeedy. :D :D


LOL! Aw, not to worry, we weren't all called to be "mouths" in the body as Joyce says.^_^

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

Is it because women are already spiritual and it is the guys who need the practice?

Is it because guys are the example of Yeshua and we are not to think God is female?

Is it is because..... let's hear why God wanted men in the ministry. Why do you think men are called to minister? Is it because they are good at minnesing.^_^

[Ivy]

Deacons are good at deekin'. :D

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

Deacons are good at deekin'. :D Deacon is also good for rats.

[stone]

Why would the Lord choose men to minister in the temple? Why are they the only priests?


I'm curious if messianics actually read the torah?

Anyrate, priest offer sacrifices to God. Ministers are teachers.

[visionary]

I'm curious if messianics actually read the torah?

Anyrate, priest offer sacrifices to God. Ministers are teachers.Scripture please

[ContraMundum]

Is it because women are already spiritual and it is the guys who need the practice?

Holiness between the genders is not an issue in deciding the ordained ministry- only the what the scriptures say matters.

The holiest human in the entire Bible is a woman. Mary. She was not called to the ordained ministry but a far, far greater one.

Is it because guys are the example of Yeshua and we are not to think God is female?

Yes. But you'd need a lot of space to explain that.

Is it is because..... let's hear why God wanted men in the ministry.

...because it's His Church, not ours, and He says who has to do what. :)

Not one place in the Bible does it say to call women to the apostolate, presbytery or episcopacy. He called men to the Apostolate, even though there were holy women readily available. Women are called to fill a myriad of other ministries, but those three are for men only.

He ordained only men when He walked the earth, keeping in step with the uniquely Jewish practice of having only men as priests and perpetuating it. (All of the other ancient Near East- and beyond- religions had female priestesses- the Jewish religion was radically unique in having a male only priesthood).

Women have far greater and more important roles to fill in the Church of God.

[ContraMundum]

Why are there prophetesses then if men are only called?

Good question.

The prophetess is not an ordained presbyter/episcopos which is a different role. Prophecy is a unique role and ministry and women have been used mightily in scripture to fulfill that role.

Being a prophet is an annointed ministry, but it is not an ordained one. (Sure, an anointing [charism] is needed to be ordained, but not necessarily prophecy, depending on how you define it!)

[ContraMundum]

Anyrate, priest offer sacrifices to God. Ministers are teachers.

I'd suggest there's more to a priesthood than offering sacrifices just like there's more to ministry than teaching.

The Church, like Israel, is a nation of Kings and priests ("royal priesthood"). Therefore, we all fulfill a priestly role- yet like Israel, not all are called to the ordained, public priesthood. Some within the national priesthood were called to the Levitical priesthood, and others were not. God defended the boundary between the two that He set up (as is demonstrated in the story of Korah).

The church has historically called it's ministers "priests" because they are part of the priesthood of all believers and that they carry out that role of presbyter/bishop publically on behalf of that greater priesthood. Other titles may be used depending on language and theological emphasis, but ultimately the Christian ministry is the public ministry of the priesthood of all by the called and ordained priesthood of some.

[visionary]

A straight answer, thank you Contra...

Is there any psychological reason God would have to do this?

[ContraMundum]

A straight answer, thank you Contra...

Is there any psychological reason God would have to do this?

I don't believe we are told about any psychological reason. Only God knows if He factored gender-based emotional issues into calling ministers. We get our directives straight from scripture and don't have the authority to overule it according to our human reasoning.

It's very much in the realm of speculation and supposition to take it much further than the scriptures.

However, you did touch on one theological reason- the iconography of the ministry- a male representing a male.

[johnd]

Is it because women are already spiritual and it is the guys who need the practice?

No.

A female broke the commandment(s) first. However, it was a female who first testified Jesus is the Messiah to the Samaritans (John 4) who Jesus first disclosed deliberately and directly that he is indeed the Messiah, and it was females who first witnessed the resurrected Lord and were also the first to testify to the fact that he had risen.

I believe these all were because Eve was the first to sin as well as the text about pain in child bearing (which in my observation lasts long after giving birth)...

It's not that men are better at it... it's just one of the many ordinances God stipulated (among which are the specifics about how humanity can access / approach him not being any old way that tickles our fancy).

Is it because guys are the example of Yeshua and we are not to think God is female?

This could be a valid point. Another tendency of humanity is the worship of females and their fertility... shall we say... which the fashion industry has glorified and institutionalized to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars a year.

1 Peter 3 spells out Godly beauty and how it is not to be exploited and warns the potential male exploiters that it is their prayers which will be hindered for this...

Is it is because..... let's hear why God wanted men in the ministry.

It's because it is God's universe and this is the way he chose to make it. Why didn't God create Eve first? Why don't males bear children? Equally valid questions. Why is it unusual for donkey's to talk (Balaam;'s was the exception not the rule)?

These things just are the way they are. And when males and females live in their roles according to the design of the human manufacturer we compliment each other instead of opposing each other or creating deficiencies in the other to support some temporary trend (and the last 100 years has been temporary in the course of time). The ancient Corinthians held women's suffrage rallies in Paul's day.

Nothing new under the sun...

[stone]

Scripture please

What, are you serious? Where have you seen a woman offer a sacrifice to God? For the other, all you have to do is turn on a christian television channel. No scripture needed.

[Redneck12]

For what it is worth, my observation over the years is that when women move into traditionally male roles, in or out of the church, the men tend to gradually drop out and leave it to the women until the women are the only ones left and are doing everything.

You can observe this in society where due to feminism men have dropped out of about everything except fathering children.

[Texasbluebonnet]

I've totally not read any of the previous posts, but I just really wanna post my opinion. My opinion on this is that men are the leaders. Spiritually, that is. And...I'm okay with that. I know some may not agree, and that's fine but I think that Biblically speaking that men are to be the spiritual leaders and that means they are to be ministers. I don't have a problem with women teaching other women though. I think that's great.

[Henaynei]

Chavah was not given the commandment to not eat - G-d gave that commandment to A'dam

From the beginning it was the man who was given the authority --- ;)

15 AD-NAI, G-d, took the person and put him in the garden of 'Eden to cultivate and care for it.

16 AD-NAI, G-d, gave the person this order: "You may freely eat from every tree in the garden 17 except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. You are not to eat from it, because on the day that you eat from it, it will become certain that you will die."
18 AD-NAI, G-d, said, "It isn't good that the person should be alone. I will make for him a companion suitable for helping him." 19 So from the ground AD-NAI, G-d, formed every wild animal and every bird that flies in the air, and he brought them to the person to see what he would call them. Whatever the person would call each living creature, that was to be its name. 20 So the person gave names to all the livestock, to the birds in the air and to every wild animal. But for Adam there was not found a companion suitable for helping him. 21 Then G-d caused a deep sleep to fall upon the person; and while he was sleeping, he took one of his ribs and closed up the place from which he took it with flesh. 22 The rib which AD-NAI, G-d, had taken from the person, he made a woman-person; and he brought her to the man-person. 23 The man-person said, "At last! This is bone from my bones and flesh from my flesh. She is to be called Woman [Hebrew: ishah], because she was taken out of Man [Hebrew: ish]." 24 This is why a man is to leave his father and mother and stick with his wife, and they are to be one flesh. 25 They were both naked, the man and his wife, and they were not ashamed.

[Ivy]

No.

A female broke the commandment(s) first. However, it was a female who first testified Jesus is the Messiah to the Samaritans (John 4) who Jesus first disclosed deliberately and directly that he is indeed the Messiah, and it was females who first witnessed the resurrected Lord and were also the first to testify to the fact that he had risen.



It could also maybe be argued that a male broke the commandment first, couldn't it? God gave dominion over every living creature to Adam, and that would certainly include a serpent.

Yet there was a choice first made by him not to exercise dominion and authority at a crucial moment. He could have intervened in the exchange that was taking place between woman & serpent, since he was there, but for some reason he chose not to.

The idea of him being "first" by passive choice also makes sense to me because later it is later totally undone by the active choice of Jesus, also male, who is the "first"born from the dead and the Second Adam.

In a sense, Adam first did something that a man was commanded not to do--that is, abdicate leadership--and Eve first did something that a woman wasn't commanded to do--that is, take leadership. Both at fault for their own sin.

[visionary]

excellent point.. Ivy... something ot think about.

[ozell]

Is it because women are already spiritual and it is the guys who need the practice?

Is it because guys are the example of Yeshua and we are not to think God is female?

Is it is because..... let's hear why God wanted men in the ministry.

1Tm 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

1Cor 11:8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.

2Cor 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

1Tm 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

[ozell]

also

Gen 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

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 3:20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

Gen1v27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28: And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have

[ozell]

something to consider

Gen18v18: Seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him?

19: For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment; that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him.

1Tm 5:8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

Mt 10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

Gen3v16: 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.

[Texasbluebonnet]

1Tm 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

1Cor 11:8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.

2Cor 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

1Tm 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

You make a very wise point. Eve didn't know what she was doing. But Adam knew exactly what he was doing. Nothing happened when Eve ate, but everything fell apart when Adam did. That's to point out that men are the leaders (is that another thread btw?). The world suffered because he failed in his leadership. Women don't have that burden. It's a fallacy to blame Eve, in my humble opinion. The devil went after the weak one, which was Eve. If he'd gone to Adam, it wouldn't have happened, because he knew better. But he used Eve to get to Adam because she was without guile.

[Ivy]

You make a very wise point. Eve didn't know what she was doing. But Adam knew exactly what he was doing. Nothing happened when Eve ate, but everything fell apart when Adam did. That's to point out that men are the leaders (is that another thread btw?). The world suffered because he failed in his leadership. Women don't have that burden. It's a fallacy to blame Eve, in my humble opinion. The devil went after the weak one, which was Eve. If he'd gone to Adam, it wouldn't have happened, because he knew better. But he used Eve to get to Adam because she was without guile.

I have to agree mainly with this. :thumbsup:

Many of the things I've read over the years that put all the blame on Eve and on females for our fallen world are very hurtful, not to mention sinful, because the idea that it was only her is a lie.

Both parties were--and are--to blame. Women sometimes try to take over, instead of patiently waiting on God in prayer until the "something good" that needs to happen is brought forth (like childbirth...lots of waiting:sorry: ). Men sometimes abdicate responsibility because of a fear of failure, instead of remembering that they since are now in Yeshua/Jesus, the "Man Who Never Failed," all is ultimately well.

[ozell]

You make a very wise point. Eve didn't know what she was doing. But Adam knew exactly what he was doing. Nothing happened when Eve ate, but everything fell apart when Adam did. That's to point out that men are the leaders (is that another thread btw?). The world suffered because he failed in his leadership. Women don't have that burden. It's a fallacy to blame Eve, in my humble opinion. The devil went after the weak one, which was Eve. If he'd gone to Adam, it wouldn't have happened, because he knew better. But he used Eve to get to Adam because she was without guile.

All adam had to say is

woman

get out of my face with that nonsence from satan

something simple as putting his fingers in ears

look what the Lord said to Adam

this is adam fault according to scripture

Gen3v17: And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
18: Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
19: In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou
return.

Adam listened to his wife over God.

Adam did not listen to satan.

Adam chose his wife over the Lord

This is why I put

Mt 10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

who is in charge of the house hold when the man is out.

the woman.

but when the man is in the house, who is in charge?

the man

Eve is not at fault,

Adam is at fault,

Adam hid behind Eve,

Gen3v12: And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.

as we MEN in this society still do.

There is two types of men

A worldly man

A Godly man

There is two types of women

A worldly woman

A Godly woman

in order to have a Godly spouse we have to know the Word of God.

worldly people still go to church.

Godly people have to live in the world

[A_Pioneer]

Why do you think men are called to the ministry?

Because the Angels and women are filling the important roles.
Also so men have something more important to do than, stroking their beards and saying "Hmmmmmm."

[visionary]

And sitting in the gate and judging the smaller matters...lol

[Texasbluebonnet]

All adam had to say is

woman

get out of my face with that nonsence from satan

something simple as putting his fingers in ears

look what the Lord said to Adam

this is adam fault according to scripture

Gen3v17: And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
18: Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
19: In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou
return.

Adam listened to his wife over God.

Adam did not listen to satan.

Adam chose his wife over the Lord

This is why I put

Mt 10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

who is in charge of the house hold when the man is out.

the woman.

but when the man is in the house, who is in charge?

the man

Eve is not at fault,

Adam is at fault,

Adam hid behind Eve,

Gen3v12: And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.

as we MEN in this society still do.

There is two types of men

A worldly man

A Godly man

There is two types of women

A worldly woman

A Godly woman

in order to have a Godly spouse we have to know the Word of God.

worldly people still go to church.

Godly people have to live in the world

Yep. He failed to stand up and be a godly man. He could have said what you mentioned. He should have. I wish he had have. Oh well. But you're right. Some men don't step up like they should and women are trying to take over where we're not supposed to. I think it's because of a lack of responsibility, and pride, if you ask me. In my humble opinion.

Why do you think men are called to the ministry?

Because the Angels and women are filling the important roles.
Also so men have something more important to do than, stroking their beards and saying "Hmmmmmm."


True. I'm an old fashioned gal. I think the men should do the preaching and the women have the babies. Lol ^_^ !

[johnd]

It could also maybe be argued that a male broke the commandment first, couldn't it? God gave dominion over every living creature to Adam, and that would certainly include a serpent.

This is a very good point! And it opens the door for many possible ways of looking at this. Not the least of which is the charge that if Adam was passively responsible for Eve's action / inter action between the serpent and herself... then is not God ultimately responsible as well?

Not to disparage your point, because I believe there is validity to a certain extent... God being responsible for his creation... which was the deciding factor as to who in the Godhead would be the redeemer... the one who created all things (i.e. the Word).

Proverbs 26:27 Whoso diggeth a pit shall fall therein: and he that rolleth a stone, it will return upon him.

There are many ways to look at an argument / point of view / advent. For example the will of God. He wills that no man perish, yet only the redeemed are spared. Does God's will prevail or not? That sort of thing.

If Adam was actually present with Eve as the devil in the form of the serpent was tempting Eve and said or did nothing... then yes, in one sense he is the responsible one (as is God who was also there was he not?).

I have heard it postulated that this was similar to the little sibling gambit... little Johnny wants to see what happens when a car key is stuck into a live light socket but fears the consequences so he put up his brother littler Jimmy to send in the probe.

A valid possibility.

There's also the possibility he was not there and oblivious to the exchange between Eve and the serpent. The Bible mentions Adam and Eve being together at some unspecified point (whether all along or at some particular point is unclear).

Sorry these thoughts seem so strung out, it's late and I'm in a bit of a hurry.

There is also the camp that believes Eve's temptation was not just an issue of hunger or of appeal (that the fruit was a bobble) or that it was even necessarily curious or intriguing for being "forbidden." But the appeal was possibly an issue of self awareness.

One of the greatest parts of our self awareness is our place in creation. From this comes either humility or self will. It may be that the real temptation was the thought of becoming as God...

Not suggesting the possibility that there was any rank or file between humans in those days (there appears only to have been the distinction that Adam was created first) and of course God was superior to all things. But the man did not even name the woman until after the fall. It is debatable when he called the gender "woman" that he was exerting authority / domination but there is also the matter of how the woman was formed and from what part of the man she was taken. The Hebrew text suggests it was out of Adam's side... it could have been a second heart for all we know.

At any rate, to carry all possibilities to their logical conclusion (using 1 Timothy 2:9-15 as divine commentary) for Adam to be found not guilty of actual sin at this point strongly suggests his ignorance... that possibly Eve had this conversation or series of conversations without Adam actually present and she ate the fruit and realized she was stripped of her prior innocence and in a panic she gave Adam the fruit surreptitiously, "here, try this..." and Adam without looking or questioning ate what his wife told him to try.

Now the same result happened. Adam ate the forbidden fruit and though he did so in ignorance died (some 900 years later) from the act. It was transgression on his part, but it can be said that his was not a deliberate sin.

If these scenarios are correct then Eve did chose to eat the fruit deliberately,, and for 1 Timothy 2 to ring true, Adam could not have knowingly eaten the forbidden fruit. So his "being with her" and "listening to her voice" in Genesis 3 were in ignorance.

And given the interaction of males and females down through the ages, does it not seem more plausible that women who tend to be more savvy than men knew what was going on and the man didn't have a clue? And that is what part of the teeth in the curse on humanity was about putting the clueless male in charge of everything... doesn't that make more sense???

;)

[johnd]

Oh and by the by...

Adam and Eve died some 900 year after they ate the forbidden fruit... on the same day they ate it...

puzzle?

How is this possible, scholars?

[johnd]

I have to agree mainly with this. :thumbsup:

Many of the things I've read over the years that put all the blame on Eve and on females for our fallen world are very hurtful, not to mention sinful, because the idea that it was only her is a lie.

You were responding to Tex here, but may I say... I am hopeful my posts do not come across as hurtful. I am not out to affix blame. Only to suggest possible answers and even hint at what I conclude the Bible seems to indicate. But as you can tell from the posts I leave the door open for options and possibilities I've not considered or thought through.

The fact remains according to the biblical account, as surely as Adam was created first, Eve ate the forbidden fruit first. And as assuredly from the Bible women were the first to testify to the Lord Jesus (from Mary's testimony to Elizabeth, to the Samaritan woman at the well, to the Marys and ladies at the empty tomb). Even Rhoda testified as to Peter's being freed from prison (a mystical prophecy about resurrection).

Nothing hurtful is intended here.

[johnd]

But yes, I agree there are those who are hurtful in affixing blame. And I can't think of a more unChrist-like approach to a bad situation. To blame a woman who was raped for being too provocative... or a mother who in ignorance or fear aborted her child, or a man who in a moment of weakness succumbed to lust... or a junkie or alcoholic who is trapped on the endless cycle...

ya ya ya ya ya ya
neener neener neener
sinner!
you got what you deserved!
God hates _______ (fill in the blank)

God has a particular disdain for people who do this especially "in his name..."

[johnd]

But this has gotten my wheels turning.

It has been asked somewhere here in MJ forums (sounds like the name of a disc jockey on Spin City)... what is the difference regarding witches today and in OT times? I would also include homosexuality and adultery in the equation...

Why no longer are we required to stone them to death? is essentially what is being asked.

Because the Law was given to drive us to grace. And this is a GREAT example of just that. Under the Law witch craft, false prophets, adulterers, homosexuals, back talking kids, bestialism, etc. all went under the stone... so to speak.

But today, we are to offer compassion rather than condemnation.

I know this sounds ultra liberal, as it used to sound to me. But souls are won to the truth by compassion and seldom ever by condemnation. Life has enough consequences in it to bring sinners to their knees, and if we would be there at the ready with the truth and love and compassion that is Yeshua in their hour of need, we would establish a bond with God and them than none could put asunder.

If on the other hand we beat them with a cross or wooden stake we drive them into their resolve NOT to know the God we believe in and into the enclaves of support groups etc.

Lest we forget, we in the body of Messiah are an OUTREACH.

[johnd]

Oh, I forgot to mention that the difference is the two covenants with the cross smack dab in the middle between them both. We are on this side of the cross and that's the difference.

[visionary]

Oh and by the by...

Adam and Eve died some 900 year after they ate the forbidden fruit... on the same day they ate it...

puzzle?

How is this possible, scholars?That is a question for another thread.

[Texasbluebonnet]

But yes, I agree there are those who are hurtful in affixing blame. And I can't think of a more unChrist-like approach to a bad situation. To blame a woman who was raped for being too provocative... or a mother who in ignorance or fear aborted her child, or a man who in a moment of weakness succumbed to lust... or a junkie or alcoholic who is trapped on the endless cycle...

ya ya ya ya ya ya
neener neener neener
sinner!
you got what you deserved!
God hates _______ (fill in the blank)

God has a particular disdain for people who do this especially "in his name..."


You may want to refrain from using the abortion anaology. Again, you may. My sister was murdered from abortion, so that anaology won't get anywhere with me. I don't care about the "good reasons" someone would have. None fly with me. Just a little FYI.

[Ivy]

This is a very good point! And it opens the door for many possible ways of looking at this. Not the least of which is the charge that if Adam was passively responsible for Eve's action / inter action between the serpent and herself... then is not God ultimately responsible as well?

Not to disparage your point, because I believe there is validity to a certain extent... God being responsible for his creation... which was the deciding factor as to who in the Godhead would be the redeemer... the one who created all things (i.e. the Word).

Proverbs 26:27 Whoso diggeth a pit shall fall therein: and he that rolleth a stone, it will return upon him.

There are many ways to look at an argument / point of view / advent. For example the will of God. He wills that no man perish, yet only the redeemed are spared. Does God's will prevail or not? That sort of thing.

If Adam was actually present with Eve as the devil in the form of the serpent was tempting Eve and said or did nothing... then yes, in one sense he is the responsible one (as is God who was also there was he not?).

I have heard it postulated that this was similar to the little sibling gambit... little Johnny wants to see what happens when a car key is stuck into a live light socket but fears the consequences so he put up his brother littler Jimmy to send in the probe.

A valid possibility.

There's also the possibility he was not there and oblivious to the exchange between Eve and the serpent. The Bible mentions Adam and Eve being together at some unspecified point (whether all along or at some particular point is unclear).

Sorry these thoughts seem so strung out, it's late and I'm in a bit of a hurry.

There is also the camp that believes Eve's temptation was not just an issue of hunger or of appeal (that the fruit was a bobble) or that it was even necessarily curious or intriguing for being "forbidden." But the appeal was possibly an issue of self awareness.

One of the greatest parts of our self awareness is our place in creation. From this comes either humility or self will. It may be that the real temptation was the thought of becoming as God...

Not suggesting the possibility that there was any rank or file between humans in those days (there appears only to have been the distinction that Adam was created first) and of course God was superior to all things. But the man did not even name the woman until after the fall. It is debatable when he called the gender "woman" that he was exerting authority / domination but there is also the matter of how the woman was formed and from what part of the man she was taken. The Hebrew text suggests it was out of Adam's side... it could have been a second heart for all we know.

At any rate, to carry all possibilities to their logical conclusion (using 1 Timothy 2:9-15 as divine commentary) for Adam to be found not guilty of actual sin at this point strongly suggests his ignorance... that possibly Eve had this conversation or series of conversations without Adam actually present and she ate the fruit and realized she was stripped of her prior innocence and in a panic she gave Adam the fruit surreptitiously, "here, try this..." and Adam without looking or questioning ate what his wife told him to try.

Now the same result happened. Adam ate the forbidden fruit and though he did so in ignorance died (some 900 years later) from the act. It was transgression on his part, but it can be said that his was not a deliberate sin.

If these scenarios are correct then Eve did chose to eat the fruit deliberately,, and for 1 Timothy 2 to ring true, Adam could not have knowingly eaten the forbidden fruit. So his "being with her" and "listening to her voice" in Genesis 3 were in ignorance.

And given the interaction of males and females down through the ages, does it not seem more plausible that women who tend to be more savvy than men knew what was going on and the man didn't have a clue?
;)

I'm inclined to think the cluelessness was a result of the Fall and that that was not Adam's pre-Fall condition, after all, the Bible says man's mind was "darkened."

Also, in the NT it says, "by one man's disobedience, many were made sinners"....it doesn't say by one man's ignorance or gullibility or cluelessness, but it was by disobedience.

I'm inclined also to think that when it says, "to her husband who was with her," that he was standing right there watching the whole conversation. But of course, nobody knows.......I'll bet a lot of people would like to see the film footage from that day, though.:D At least I would. I don't know why, but this particular story is one of the most fascinating in the entire Bible to me.

[Ivy]

This is a very good point! And it opens the door for many possible ways of looking at this. Not the least of which is the charge that if Adam was passively responsible for Eve's action / inter action between the serpent and herself... then is not God ultimately responsible as well?



Yikes, that's a question that usually gets me when I ponder it.....the thought occurred to me once that letting satan into the garden in the form of a serpent, wouldn't that be a little like leaving your child alone with a convicted child molester???? (This is where I feel a little like Abraham must have felt when God asked him to sacrifice his son....like, why why why?)

Now people tell me, and I have to believe it or else reproach God and lose my sanity......that God allowed the possibility of evil in order to show the riches of his mercy.....that it would ultimately give Him a chance to show what depths and extremes He would go to out of love for us. So I can deal with that sort of. But it sure is a painful trip anyway. :(

[Ivy]

But yes, I agree there are those who are hurtful in affixing blame. And I can't think of a more unChrist-like approach to a bad situation. To blame a woman who was raped for being too provocative... or a mother who in ignorance or fear aborted her child, or a man who in a moment of weakness succumbed to lust... or a junkie or alcoholic who is trapped on the endless cycle...

ya ya ya ya ya ya
neener neener neener
sinner!
you got what you deserved!
God hates _______ (fill in the blank)

God has a particular disdain for people who do this especially "in his name..."

I think it was a diabolical set-up on the part of the adversary, because he arranged for each gender/person to get what they were least equipped to handle.........men do not cope well at all with a feeling of failure, and women do not cope well at all with being blamed. And it seems like the whole set-up has repeated over & over since that day....until the redemptive work of the Holy Spirit enters in.:clap:

I've also read interpretations that the "punishments" that God doled out to each party after the eating of the fruit were in fact meant to be curative of the particular wound each suffered, that they were in fact blessings....but that's a topic for another day.:wave:

[johnd]

But yes, I agree there are those who are hurtful in affixing blame. And I can't think of a more unChrist-like approach to a bad situation. To blame a woman who was raped for being too provocative... or a mother who in ignorance or fear aborted her child, or a man who in a moment of weakness succumbed to lust... or a junkie or alcoholic who is trapped on the endless cycle...

ya ya ya ya ya ya
neener neener neener
sinner!
you got what you deserved!
God hates _______ (fill in the blank)

God has a particular disdain for people who do this especially "in his name..."
You may want to refrain from using the abortion analogy. Again, you may. My sister was murdered from abortion, so that analogy won't get anywhere with me. I don't care about the "good reasons" someone would have. None fly with me. Just a little FYI.

I am sorry about your sister. I have a brother who was aborted so late in the pregnancy it nearly killed my mother in 1974. At the time my father was 2 years dead of leukemia. I was 13 the eldest of four children living in a hotel room in Clearwater, Florida where we had just moved to from Ohio. It was scary and mother was bed ridden and I had to do a lot of growing up real quick.

I suppose I could be real touchy about the subject too and have a chip on my shoulder, but I got over it. I suggest you do the same. It will only drag you down if you don't.

I also get the feeling that no matter what I post you are going to take it the wrong way. So I don't know what else to tell you.

What began as a friendly co-poster acquaintance has sadly come to this.

[johnd]

I'm inclined to think the cluelessness was a result of the Fall and that that was not Adam's pre-Fall condition, after all, the Bible says man's mind was "darkened."

Perhaps. But Adam even before the fall needed help.

Genesis 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

Also, in the NT it says, "by one man's disobedience, many were made sinners"....it doesn't say by one man's ignorance or gullibility or cluelessness, but it was by disobedience.

He was speaking corporately. We must consider the hermeneutics of the verses. Remembering also that the Hebrew / oriental mindset was behind the Greek language of commerce.

I'm inclined also to think that when it says, "to her husband who was with her," that he was standing right there watching the whole conversation. But of course, nobody knows.......I'll bet a lot of people would like to see the film footage from that day, though.:D At least I would. I don't know why, but this particular story is one of the most fascinating in the entire Bible to me.

True. But we have no sense of how much time elapsed or was involved with these things. It is a retrospective eyewitness account dictated to Moses. He was certainly with her when she gave him the fruit (which is also how the passage may read).

Trust me, Ivy, I am not the type to beat up on women or find fault with women. I believe the women's movement would have been a good thing if the Church had taken the leadership role it was offered when women sought relief from the oppression of increasingly unchristian behavior from males. Something had to happen to come to the defense of women and children. But the Church refused to do their job and so the women's movement had to settle for those who would stand in the gap for them... Gloria Steinem types...

So, when a man screws up I say a man screwed up. King David and Peter and so on... and when a woman screwed up, I'll say it. I don't have an agenda and am not biased. Just FYI... ;)

[johnd]

Yikes, that's a question that usually gets me when I ponder it.....the thought occurred to me once that letting satan into the garden in the form of a serpent, wouldn't that be a little like leaving your child alone with a convicted child molester???? (This is where I feel a little like Abraham must have felt when God asked him to sacrifice his son....like, why why why?)

Now people tell me, and I have to believe it or else reproach God and lose my sanity......that God allowed the possibility of evil in order to show the riches of his mercy.....that it would ultimately give Him a chance to show what depths and extremes He would go to out of love for us. So I can deal with that sort of. But it sure is a painful trip anyway. :(

Many would be shocked to learn that the answer to the question humanity repeatedly asks "why was I born?" is "To glorify God and prove he is more than fair."

You see the only reason salvation is not granted to angels (cherubs and seraphs) is because they are already in their eternal state. We, by or physicality (enabling us to die) affords us the ability to be redeemed. I have no scripture to cite other than the fact you point out about God allowing satan entrance into Eden with the very impressionable Adam's family living there... and of course the deals struck between God and satan in Job.... but underlying the scriptures one can almost back track a hearing before the universe was...

In the spirit realm the judgment was set and pronounced... and the devil made a false charge that God is unfair... that one sin and the angels were doomed for all eternity...

Setting out to prove he is more than fair and willing to pay the price for sin he created the physical universe and set into motion the plan of human redemption.

[johnd]

I think it was a diabolical set-up on the part of the adversary, because he arranged for each gender/person to get what they were least equipped to handle.........men do not cope well at all with a feeling of failure, and women do not cope well at all with being blamed. And it seems like the whole set-up has repeated over & over since that day....until the redemptive work of the Holy Spirit enters in.:clap:

I've also read interpretations that the "punishments" that God doled out to each party after the eating of the fruit were in fact meant to be curative of the particular wound each suffered, that they were in fact blessings....but that's a topic for another day.:wave:

Somewhere someone said "this life is the most heaven an unbeliever will ever know. And it is the most hell a believer will ever know."

Again, I am not trying to affix blame or ridicule. I do think there was a selfish thought that motivated the first sin... it made sense in the flesh who better than one's self to look after their own interests? So the fruit was eaten trying to pull ahead of what I believe was a truly equal role before the fall... and the result was:

Genesis 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.

The desire is to BE the husband, but he will rule...

[Lulav]

Chavah was not given the commandment to not eat - G-d gave that commandment to A'dam

From the beginning it was the man who was given the authority --- :thumbsup:

Why do you think men are called to the ministry?

Because the Angels and women are filling the important roles.
Also so men have something more important to do than, stroking their beards and saying "Hmmmmmm.":D

But this has gotten my wheels turning.

It has been asked somewhere here in MJ forums (sounds like the name of a disc jockey on Spin City)... what is the difference regarding witches today and in OT times? I would also include homosexuality and adultery in the equation...

Why no longer are we required to stone them to death? is essentially what is being asked.

Because the Law was given to drive us to grace. And this is a GREAT example of just that. Under the Law witch craft, false prophets, adulterers, homosexuals, back talking kids, bestialism, etc. all went under the stone... so to speak.

But today, we are to offer compassion rather than condemnation.

I know this sounds ultra liberal, as it used to sound to me. But souls are won to the truth by compassion and seldom ever by condemnation. Life has enough consequences in it to bring sinners to their knees, and if we would be there at the ready with the truth and love and compassion that is Yeshua in their hour of need, we would establish a bond with God and them than none could put asunder.

If on the other hand we beat them with a cross or wooden stake we drive them into their resolve NOT to know the God we believe in and into the enclaves of support groups etc.

Lest we forget, we in the body of Messiah are an OUTREACH. actually I was not asking what the difference was today, I was asking how we keep that commandment. :) especially within our congregations.

I think it was a diabolical set-up on the part of the adversary, because he arranged for each gender/person to get what they were least equipped to handle.........men do not cope well at all with a feeling of failure, and women do not cope well at all with being blamed. And it seems like the whole set-up has repeated over & over since that day....until the redemptive work of the Holy Spirit enters in.:clap:

I've also read interpretations that the "punishments" that God doled out to each party after the eating of the fruit were in fact meant to be curative of the particular wound each suffered, that they were in fact blessings....but that's a topic for another day.:wave:

Somewhere someone said "this life is the most heaven an unbeliever will ever know. And it is the most hell a believer will ever know."

Again, I am not trying to affix blame or ridicule. I do think there was a selfish thought that motivated the first sin... it made sense in the flesh who better than one's self to look after their own interests? So the fruit was eaten trying to pull ahead of what I believe was a truly equal role before the fall... and the result was:

Genesis 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.

The desire is to BE the husband, but he will rule...


Are you saying women desire to be the man?

I take that verse as describing the makeup that HaShem gave to women. Psychologically women imprint on the first man they are intimate with, like babies imprint on the first thing they see , and their desire is to that one man, to please him and to love him, etc, but men aren't the same way, any piece of flesh that comes by, if he isn't very careful to control it, gives him desire just like the next one.

Naturally a womans desire is to be that help mate to her husband, while his desire must be for her and the only way it can be is if he does what he hierarchically should, go to the L-RD for help in that.

Abraham demonstrated this when he listened to Sarah , instead of trusting the L-RD, and we have an infiltrated land of Israel as the result and terror and unrest in the whole world. It pays to go to G-d and to trust in him completely, elsewise men fail and bad things happen.

[johnd]

actually I was not asking what the difference was today, I was asking how we keep that commandment. :) especially within our congregations.

Micah 6:8 He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?

Good advice for us all... especially me. The human condition is to cry and scream and dirty our diapers to get our way...

Are you saying women desire to be the man?Interesting how all of this ties in together...

No, I am saying there is a human (male and female) desire to be the leader. "My will be done in heaven as it is in earth" as it were, and if there was such a governmental structure at the time, the scripture in question would have read "your desire will be for the presidency but he will rule over you..."

LOL not at all indicative of how one ought to vote in the upcoming American election.... ;)

Personal note: I believe America has been ready for a black President or a woman President or a black woman President for many years now. That being said I am for NONE of the candidates in the race for either party! And no not Nuh nuh nuh Nader either!

My vote as I have said elsewhere here will more or less be a compost pile turning vote. :)

But back to the scripture and point in question...

I believe the verse is simply assigning a penalty for breaking with ranks. It wasn't about Eve getting greedy for power over Adam, but for the illusive security blanket I have found most women by nature seem to want... and in so doing she broke ranks with God. And as a consequence God assigned the charge of her security blanket to Mr. Adam Clueless in life.

[Lulav]

I've been thinking about this since last night John. And would like to add that today many a woman is taught if she doesn't seek to be like a man she is helpless, again not what G-d made us for, or desires for us.

We are to be subject to our own husbands, but not to men in general. Being subject to them is not subservient, but in subjection, because the responsibility inevitably lies with the man, who is responsible for his walk and in protecting and cherishing the woman given to him for help, because G-d knows , all men need help. ;)

But we are not to force our will upon them, nor the , theirs upon us. We are to encourage, and help, and let them figure out what is the right choice to make, letting G-d lead and them stop and listen.

Adam didn't do this.

He listened to Chavah, then instead of taking it to the L-RD as his head, he made the decision to 'just do it' probably figuring that he could then do just what he did, point the figure at Chavah, and G-d!

Many forget he not only accuses Chavak of being at fault, but he does to HaShem as well, by saying,

'The woman "YOU GAVE ME" , like G-d gave him the wrong one!

If woman do appear to 'want' to lead it usually is because the man falls down on his responsibility or doesn't go to the L-RD for the final word. The L-RD should always have the final word!

[johnd]

I've been thinking about this since last night John. And would like to add that today many a woman is taught if she doesn't seek to be like a man she is helpless, again not what G-d made us for, or desires for us.

I agree.

We are to be subject to our own husbands, but not to men in general. Being subject to them is not subservient, but in subjection, because the responsibility inevitably lies with the man, who is responsible for his walk and in protecting and cherishing the woman given to him for help, because G-d knows , all men need help. ;)

I agree.

But we are not to force our will upon them, nor the , theirs upon us. We are to encourage, and help, and let them figure out what is the right choice to make, letting G-d lead and them stop and listen. I am in whole hearted agreement with Dr. Laura on this point here... that a woman's best strength is in wooing men (her man in particular) to do something rather than to lower the boom or be brutal or gruff (which is to say "see how manly I am?").

God created you differently. Now with children there is obviously a difference in this general rule. You must exert authority over children (especially your own). But even then there is a resistance factor.

Give you an example.

Mom used to beat the stuffing out of us kids when we were little. It hurt. But we wouldn't give her the satisfaction. It was a type of guile I suppose (both male and female children by the way). But if and when she played the "wait till your father gets home" card, we were in fear for our lives! Dad backed Mom completely. And when she did it that way (which I believe is the way God intended) she got her respect, and what she wanted.


Adam didn't do this.

He listened to Chavah, then instead of taking it to the L-RD as his head, he made the decision to 'just do it' probably figuring that he could then do just what he did, point the figure at Chavah, and G-d! Ok, :sigh: I see I am going to have to bring out the details. :D

1 Timothy 2:9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

Now what you said would be a valid point IF Paul did not say Adam was not deceived. There is no way he could knowingly eat the forbidden fruit and not be deceived.

Many forget he not only accuses Chavak of being at fault, but he does to HaShem as well, by saying,

'The woman "YOU GAVE ME" , like G-d gave him the wrong one! Wouldn't you?

I would. Jeremiah did.

Jeremiah 20:7 O LORD, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived: thou art stronger than I, and hast prevailed: I am in derision daily, every one mocketh me.

Of course God did not deceive anyone. But he is a big enough God to take this kind of thing. And in the case of Adam, if he was called onto the carpet for eating the fruit of which he had no knowledge at the time it was the forbidden fruit, would he not say as much?

And again, there's that problem of Paul's biblical testimony that he was not deceived. He was defrauded by Chavah but not deceived.

Deceit involves false belief. Being defrauded involves ignorance.

If woman do appear to 'want' to lead it usually is because the man falls down on his responsibility or doesn't go to the L-RD for the final word. The L-RD should always have the final word!I agree that this is more often the case than not. Perfect example of this is Deborah and Barak (Judges 4-5).

But there is as you stated in the beginning an upsurge in female dominance and it displaces men and in that state of displacement men become more irresponsible worsening the problem. You see genders tend to balance each other out when we fulfill out God given roles. Like my father backing my mother. She just had to say to him "Kill!" and he did. "Please don't kill me Daddy! I'll be good and obey and respect Mom from now on..." :bow:

[Ivy]

So, when a man screws up I say a man screwed up. King David and Peter and so on... and when a woman screwed up, I'll say it.

Yes, I think we're saying the same thing in different ways....both parties stepped out of their proper spheres that day, and when God came to question them about it, He held Adam responsible for himself, and Eve responsible for herself.

Adam could have said, since he was with her, "Wait a moment, dear. We're going to be walking with the Lord God in the cool of the day later today, so let's wait and ask him about this." Or, to the serpent: "You. Out."

Eve could have said, "Hmmmm, I don't knowwwww.....I think I'll wait and ask my husband or ask God. Later, Snakey."

Both people made wrong choices, though.

[Ivy]

I believe the verse is simply assigning a penalty for breaking with ranks. It wasn't about Eve getting greedy for power over Adam, but for the illusive security blanket I have found most women by nature seem to want... and in so doing she broke ranks with God. And as a consequence God assigned the charge of her security blanket to Mr. Adam Clueless in life.

But Eve couldn't have had insecurity in Eden, pre-Fall.....insecurity is a result of the Fall. She had a perfect, happy situation, she wasn't insecure at that point. The enemy simply marketed "a 'harmless,' alternative way" and was able to sell it by appealing to her curiosity.

I still disagree that Adam was "clueless," or that redeemed men are "clueless," either......sounds like cop-out talk--like when homosexuals say, "I can't help it, I was born this way." Uh-uh. Lack of self-responsibility.

[judahsgem]

Are our bodies, according to NT, not called Living Temples???

[johnd]

...in depth... ran out of title space :P

Yes, I think we're saying the same thing in different ways....both parties stepped out of their proper spheres that day, and when God came to question them about it, He held Adam responsible for himself, and Eve responsible for herself.

I agree with the stipulation that God held Adam accountable first as the head of the family...

Adam could have said, since he was with her, "Wait a moment, dear. We're going to be walking with the Lord God in the cool of the day later today, so let's wait and ask him about this." Or, to the serpent: "You. Out."

IF he was knowledgeable of the situation, I'd agree with you on this. But as I stated about not being deceived, he could not have known otherwise he would have been deceived about the fruit.

Eve could have said, "Hmmmm, I don't knowwwww.....I think I'll wait and ask my husband or ask God. Later, Snakey."

Both people made wrong choices, though.

If the Genesis accounts are chronological at all, the warning about the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was given to Adam before Eve was created. And she did tell the serpent what God said... via Adam... with a bit of an editorial about not even touching the fruit (the first of the 613 mitzvot?) ;)

[johnd]

But Eve couldn't have had insecurity in Eden, pre-Fall.....insecurity is a result of the Fall.

Not necessarily.

Lucifer and Eve (who the Bible records as the first of their kinds to sin) were created as were all angels and both humans with the capacity not to choose God's way (which is the most basic definition of sin). That's the downside of intelligence and not being a robot / automaton. To be able to choose God is only made possible (not to mention being itself of any meaning) by the fact that there was another choice (the choice not to choose God). That's why there were two trees of eternal consequence in Eden. But man was made aware of only the one and was given the choice not to eat and obey God or to eat and disobey God.

What's all that have to do with security / insecurity? The setting for the "ideal situation" may not be so ideal as we think. That for eternity in heaven to exist as it will in our future (Praise God!) there has to have been the spiritual train wreck we've all been delivered from because of insecurity...

Why else would anyone risk the ideal situation? The thought of self will entering in. Who better to see to my needs and my wants than me? The thought does not even have to be malicious, but it ends up in evil. We still live in the results of this seedbed of disaster... and we will have all of eternity to reflect back on this with absolute certainty that to oppose God in the slightest is catastrophic thinking.

And at the root of this is the insecure thought that God might not be taking as good a care of me as I would do myself... which is totally false... but it's what even innocents think... unless you are just clueless like Adam who just kind of seemed to roll along with the punches of life and why he so needed a helper...

:P

I still disagree that Adam was "clueless," or that redeemed men are "clueless," either......sounds like cop-out talk--like when homosexuals say, "I can't help it, I was born this way." Uh-uh. Lack of self-responsibility.

But you see, I think it was in part for that very lack of responsibility in Adam's nature that God put the man in charge... most guys way to be Peter Pan. I'll sign the checks you fill out the information... and from the Genesis 3 account its setting and the fact that Adam was not the target of the devil but Eve was (I do not buy the weaker spirit argument when what Paul so clearly spoke of as the weaker vessel dealt with physical strength).

I think the devil went to undercut the strong one. If you want to clobber a competitor in this way, do you work on him or his right hand woman (the administrative assistant who handles every detail of the man's life and agenda)?

Food for thought....

[johnd]

We fall over a very high cliff face and grab onto a small plants roots sticking out from the side of the cliff. No one is around for miles but we scream for help as the roots start to give way. It's thousands of feet drop to our certain death below and all seems lost.

"HELP! Is there anybody up there who can help me?"

"Yes."

"Who is it?"

"It is I, Jesus. Just let go..."

"Is there anybody else up there?"

That's the human and apparently the angelic condition a side effect of intelligence and choice... insecurity or inability to trust God implicitly.

[Lulav]

I agree.



I agree.

I am in whole hearted agreement with Dr. Laura on this point here... that a woman's best strength is in wooing men (her man in particular) to do something rather than to lower the boom or be brutal or gruff (which is to say "see how manly I am?").

I don't understand your reply to this, who is this Dr Laura? I've heard others that attend my Torah group mention her, and I can only assume this person is on the radio? Or writes a column somewhere? :confused:


God created you differently. Now with children there is obviously a difference in this general rule. You must exert authority over children (especially your own). But even then there is a resistance factor.

Give you an example.

Mom used to beat the stuffing out of us kids when we were little. It hurt. But we wouldn't give her the satisfaction. It was a type of guile I suppose (both male and female children by the way). But if and when she played the "wait till your father gets home" card, we were in fear for our lives! Dad backed Mom completely. And when she did it that way (which I believe is the way God intended) she got her respect, and what she wanted.

Good to see that worked for some, now what would you say to a child that you used this on, and the father refused to back you up, or give any punishment?

Ok, :sigh: I see I am going to have to bring out the details. :D

1 Timothy 2:9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

We have been saved by the child Miriam bore, his name is Yeshua.

Now what you said would be a valid point IF Paul did not say Adam was not deceived. There is no way he could knowingly eat the forbidden fruit and not be deceived.

Exactly what I said, he knew what he was doing, he was ignoring G-d, and using Chavah to blame it on, it is plain by his words, 'the woman you gave me, she gave me the fruit and I ate', Like she shoved it down his throat. Man is responsible for all his acts, it doesn't matter about the beguiling, that is why he is to go to his head ( Father G-d) for everything. We are all tested, we are all given choices, but we are responsible for what we choose to do.


Wouldn't you?

I would. Jeremiah did.

No, passing the blame is never the answer, it only makes it worst, be honest, admit you failed, you did not go to G-d and there is no excuse because he is always there, always available. If we fail to go to him and listen to his counsel we have no one to blame but ourselves.

Jeremiah 20:7 O LORD, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived: thou art stronger than I, and hast prevailed: I am in derision daily, every one mocketh me.

Of course God did not deceive anyone. But he is a big enough God to take this kind of thing. And in the case of Adam, if he was called onto the carpet for eating the fruit of which he had no knowledge at the time it was the forbidden fruit, would he not say as much?

Who said he had no knowledge?

And again, there's that problem of Paul's biblical testimony that he was not deceived. He was defrauded by Chavah but not deceived.

Deceit involves false belief. Being defrauded involves ignorance.

Defrauded? Really, then every man who listens to a woman and gets in trouble for it can get of scott free? There sure would be no prison overcrowding if that view were to reign!

I agree that this is more often the case than not. Perfect example of this is Deborah and Barak (Judges 4-5).

But there is as you stated in the beginning an upsurge in female dominance and it displaces men and in that state of displacement men become more irresponsible worsening the problem. You see genders tend to balance each other out when we fulfill out God given roles. Like my father backing my mother. She just had to say to him "Kill!" and he did. "Please don't kill me Daddy! I'll be good and obey and respect Mom from now on..." :bow: Then you can see my point in that from the beginning the man has bulked at going to G-d when faced with any decision, and it still goes on today. If he would just listen to G-d we would all be living in a peaceful earth.

[Lulav]

That's why there were two trees of eternal consequence in Eden. But man was made aware of only the one and was given the choice not to eat and obey God or to eat and disobey God.

Are you saying that Adam had no knowledge of the garden G-d placed him into? He was told he could eat of all the trees but one, so he knew of all the trees. The Tree of life is the other one that stood in the center of the garden, and out of it flowed living water, just as we see in Rev 2:7 and 22:2

[Lulav]

We fall over a very high cliff face and grab onto a small plants roots sticking out from the side of the cliff. No one is around for miles but we scream for help as the roots start to give way. It's thousands of feet drop to our certain death below and all seems lost.

"HELP! Is there anybody up there who can help me?"

"Yes."

"Who is it?"

"It is I, Jesus. Just let go..."

"Is there anybody else up there?"

That's the human and apparently the angelic condition a side effect of intelligence and choice... insecurity or inability to trust God implicitly.
I would have to say that more man would give that response than women, I think we are more apt to trust G-d than men are.

[Texasbluebonnet]

I would have to say that more man would give that response than women, I think we are more apt to trust G-d than men are.


Well, that and for some odd reason a lot men get it in their heads that it's not manly to be a follower of Jesus. Go figure...:scratch: :confused: ...

[johnd]

Then you can see my point in that from the beginning the man has bulked at going to G-d when faced with any decision, and it still goes on today. If he would just listen to G-d we would all be living in a peaceful earth.

Aaaaaaaaaaamen!

[Lulav]

Well, that and for some odd reason a lot men get it in their heads that it's not manly to be a follower of Jesus. Go figure...:scratch: :confused: ...Exactly, the ' i am man, I can do it myself' mentality, which is born out in things like they never read instruction manuals, or ask for directions, it doesn't matter how much time or money they waste, just as long as they can say, I did it myself!

But G-d did not create us to work independently from him, oh sure we can try, but we will fail, every time. Only when working echad with him can we do things right, and perfectly.

Again, Yeshua is the only man who got it right. :bow:

[johnd]

Are you saying that Adam had no knowledge of the garden G-d placed him into? He was told he could eat of all the trees but one, so he knew of all the trees. The Tree of life is the other one that stood in the center of the garden, and out of it flowed living water, just as we see in Rev 2:7 and 22:2

Yes, but can you show where God made a particular mention "This is the tree of life... from it you will gain...."

??

I don't see it. Maybe he did know, but the fact that he had not already eaten from it (by the time they ate of the tee of the knowledge of good and evil) is as valid an inference he was ignorant of what the tree of life was as any inference that might suggest he knew...

yes?

[johnd]

I would have to say that more man would give that response than women, I think we are more apt to trust G-d than men are.

mmmm, I can't say I agree with the latter part of your comment, but I do the first part. Women tend to come to their senses faster than men and are quicker to realize it's this or the alternative.....

aahhhhh....


aaahhhhhhh.....


aahhhhhhhhhhhhhh....

ahhhhhhhhhhh....

:swoon:

[Lulav]

Take a moment to read this (http://www.lightofmashiach.org/women/roleofwomen.html)

It explains it much better by using the true meaning of the Greek from whence it originated. :)

[Lulav]

Yes, but can you show where God made a particular mention "This is the tree of life... from it you will gain...."

??

I don't see it. Maybe he did know, but the fact that he had not already eaten from it (by the time they ate of the tee of the knowledge of good and evil) is as valid an inference he was ignorant of what the tree of life was as any inference that might suggest he knew...

yes?

Let me ask you, if you have ever had an overseers job, what is the first thing you would do?

[johnd]

Well, that and for some odd reason a lot men get it in their heads that it's not manly to be a follower of Jesus. Go figure...:scratch: :confused: ...

True. Sad but true. And to convince them about Christ being the bridegroom of the Church really freaks out a manly man.

[johnd]

I'm going to yellow alert here...

Let me ask you, if you have ever had an overseers job, what is the first thing you would do?

Celebrate.

[johnd]

And on the 1 Timothy 2 site... is it something I can defuse by mentioning Paul alluded to the progenitors of the human race (thus establishing the universal application of the passage the same way Christ did about marriage in Matthew 19)???

I mean, I don't want to spend a lot of time rereading cultural applications or antiquations of yesteryear treatment of women... if I'm off base, could you sum this up please?

[Lulav]

mmmm, I can't say I agree with the latter part of your comment, but I do the first part. Women tend to come to their senses faster than men and are quicker to realize it's this or the alternative.....

aahhhhh....


aaahhhhhhh.....


aahhhhhhhhhhhhhh....

ahhhhhhhhhhh....

:swoon: I understand why you couldn't agree, you aren't a woman, ;)but I've seen it, and the percentages speak loudly.

there is still the argument that chavah was not told by G-d not to eat of it, but got the info second hand, did Adam add the fence or did she? Many unanswered questions, so much is speculation still.

But bottom line, Adam should have gone to G-d first, because it does say sin entered into the world by one MaN, not man and woman or mankind, and thus the need for one man ( Yeshua ) to redeem it, not man an woman like the RCC teaches that Mary and Jesus did it.

[Texasbluebonnet]

True. Sad but true. And to convince them about Christ being the bridegroom of the Church really freaks out a manly man.


Yeah, I'll bet. Too bad they feel that way. I don't have any pearls of wisdom to counter that attitude mostly because I'm a girl, but I guess all we can do is pray that attitudes like that are changed.

[Lulav]

I'm going to yellow alert here...



Celebrate. HUH?:confused:

OK, let me try something else. We were talking about the trees in the garden. You said Adam didn't have knowledge of the Tree of Life. I asked you if you had ever had a job as an overseer. Someone who is put in charge of a facility, inside or out. I should think the first thing that would happen on this job is that you would be taken around the territory that you were to be in charge of and shown everything. If you did not know what something was, you would ask, would you not?

8 ADONAI, G-d, planted a garden toward the east, in 'Eden, and there he put the person whom he had formed. 9 Out of the ground ADONAI, G-d, caused to grow every tree pleasing in appearance and good for food, including the tree of life in the middle of the garden and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

15 ADONAI, G-d, took the person and put him in the garden of 'Eden to cultivate and care for it. 16 ADONAI, G-d, gave the person this order: "You may freely eat from every tree in the garden 17 except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. You are not to eat from it, because on the day that you eat from it, it will become certain that you will die."

[Texasbluebonnet]

I understand why you couldn't agree, you aren't a woman, ;)but I've seen it, and the percentages speak loudly.

there is still the argument that chavah was not told by G-d not to eat of it, but got the info second hand, did Adam add the fence or did she? Many unanswered questions, so much is speculation still.

But bottom line, Adam should have gone to G-d first, because it does say sin entered into the world by one MaN, not man and woman or mankind, and thus the need for one man ( Yeshua ) to redeem it, not man an woman like the RCC teaches that Mary and Jesus did it.


Exactly. A godly man would have. And if Adam had have been a godly man that's the action he would have taken. The key here is pride. I think that he (perhaps) got a little prideful. Instead of relying on God like he should have he wanted to go out on his own. I may be wrong, but that's what I think.

[Lulav]

And on the 1 Timothy 2 site... is it something I can defuse by mentioning Paul alluded to the progenitors of the human race (thus establishing the universal application of the passage the same way Christ did about marriage in Matthew 19)???

I mean, I don't want to spend a lot of time rereading cultural applications or antiquations of yesteryear treatment of women... if I'm off base, could you sum this up please? It is not a long read at all, 5 minutes most, but it is from a Messianic POV and unbiased IMO. :)

You have challenged us woman by posting that we aren't to teach, at least you can do is take a few minutes to read this, no? :)

[johnd]

HUH?:confused:

Didn't see that one coming? LOL :clap:

Sorry I was making a funny about my being an overseer which cracks me up... since my experience as a P.O. 2nd Class in the Navy, I generally flee leadership roles....

http://stark.redcross.org/images/Running_Away.gif


OK, let me try something else. We were talking about the trees in the garden. You said Adam didn't have knowledge of the Tree of Life. I asked you if you had ever had a job as an overseer. Someone who is put in charge of a facility, inside or out. I should think the first thing that would happen on this job is that you would be taken around the territory that you were to be in charge of and shown everything. If you did not know what something was, you would ask, would you not?

Fair enough. But would I be able to have full knowledge of everything there is to know about every thing under my charge?

[johnd]

It is not a long read at all, 5 minutes most, but it is from a Messianic POV and unbiased IMO. :)

You have challenged us woman by posting that we aren't to teach, at least you can do is take a few minutes to read this, no? :)

LOL Guilt by association? :doh:Oh well...

I never said you aren't to teach. I only pointed to the passage that stipulates Adam was clueless / not deceived.

I in fact teach that women can teach other women and children of both genders... and the world would be a very evil place if they did not!!!!

[johnd]

Yeah, I'll bet. Too bad they feel that way. I don't have any pearls of wisdom to counter that attitude mostly because I'm a girl, but I guess all we can do is pray that attitudes like that are changed.

:amen:

[johnd]

I understand why you couldn't agree, you aren't a woman, ;)but I've seen it, and the percentages speak loudly.

LOL

[quote]there is still the argument that chavah was not told by G-d not to eat of it, but got the info second hand, did Adam add the fence or did she? Many unanswered questions, so much is speculation still.

Agreed. But Paul's inspired commentary about Adam not being deceived is compelling evidence from the Bible that Adam was just clueless and Chavah (I am guessing here) panicked once her "eyes were opened." I do not believe she was malicious at this point only afraid and she gave the fruit to Adam and said something like here eat this.

But bottom line, Adam should have gone to G-d first,

If my interpretation of his not being deceived... and that would include some screwy idea that he did not need to go to God first, would it not? ... then how could he if he was just plain ignorant about what was taking place....?

because it does say sin entered into the world by one MaN, not man and woman or mankind, and thus the need for one man ( Yeshua ) to redeem it, not man an woman like the RCC teaches that Mary and Jesus did it.

Please don't get me started in the Romanized church...

"man" is what Adam's name meant. Furthermore, "man" is what God called humanity both male and female...

also...

Genesis 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

the NIV says he called them MAN.

[ozell]

The Lord did say that he would do a knew thing in the earth concerning the woman



Jer 31:22 How long wilt thou go about, O thou backsliding daughter? for the LORD hath created a new thing in the earth, A woman shall compass a man.

and he said

Isa 3:12 As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.

we are given more reasons why men have dropped the ball and women have tried to stand in the gap.

[johnd]

The Lord did say that he would do a knew thing in the earth concerning the woman



Jer 31:22 How long wilt thou go about, O thou backsliding daughter? for the LORD hath created a new thing in the earth, A woman shall compass a man.

and he said

Isa 3:12 As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.

we are given more reasons why men have dropped the ball and women have tried to stand in the gap.

i used to teach this was prophecy regarding women's lib...in context as i recall it was in judgment not blessing...

[ozell]

i used to teach this was prophecy regarding women's lib...in context as i recall it was in judgment not blessing...


The Lord did say things would be turned upside down


Isa 29:14 Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid.

15: Woe unto them that seek deep to hide their counsel from the LORD, and their works are in the dark, and they say, Who seeth us? and who knoweth us?

16 Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding?

[Redheadedstepchild]

Closed for staff review

[Redheadedstepchild]

Thread re-opened.

[johnd]

My statements were not to disparage or blame anyone for anything. There is a functional order the Lord has prescribed for getting humanity through history (with a fallen world and fallen natures) since mankind blew it in Eden.

So, what I said about judgment is simply a prophecy involving the details of a departure from what God prescribed. When it is all said and done and the arguments are all boiled down to their most basic elements there are only two matters in the universe and eternity:

God's way
not God's way

[ozell]

The Lord said women will compass a man and rule the household.

If it was not for the woman filling in the gap, can you imagine what this earth would be like.

take a look at the men ministers of today are they teaching the truth.

the Lord said things would be turned upside down

here is a reason why

Gen3v16
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.

latter on in time it is written

Jer 31:22 How long wilt thou go about, O thou backsliding daughter? for the LORD hath created a new thing in the earth, A woman shall compass a man.

and he said

Isa 3:12As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.


it is very obvious that the Lord is not happy with this creation called man.

[Lulav]

Jer 31:22 How long wilt thou go about, O thou backsliding daughter? for the LORD hath created a new thing in the earth, A woman shall compass a man.I like this understanding better

There stands a mysterious prophecy, relating to woman which no scholar who accepts the rabbinical view as to the inferior rank of woman in the divine economy is capable of understanding or interpreting. The guesses at its meaning would fill a considerable niche in a museum of literary curiosities. We refer to Jer. 31:22, which is translated: “How long wilt thou go about, O thou backsliding daughter? for the Lord hath created a new thing in the earth, A woman shall compass a man.” But, as there is no word for the article “a” in the Hebrew tongue, we are at liberty to read the last phrase, “woman shall compass man,” or, more literally, “female shall compass male.” The verb “wilt . . . go about” (HEB), in the first clause of this verse, is found only in one other place in the Hebrew, Solomon’s Song, 5:6, where it is translated “withdraw;” but following the marginal reading of the R. V., it means, more properly, in the form used, “to turn [oneself] away.”
The second verb of the verse, translated “backsliding,” means also “to turn,” and is translated ‘turn’ in the previous verse. Now it is the third verb, translated “compass,” which has puzzled men most of all; it has led to a lot of different translation and interpretations; the verb (HEB) seems to mean also to “turn about.” It is generally translated “compass.”

Now what does the whole verse mean? The precise form of the latter verb is translated “led about,” in Deuteronomy 32:10, “He found him in a waste howling wilderness; He led him about, He instructed him.” Once again “new” is an adjective, used in the sense of “something new.” We suggest this rendering:

How long wilt thou keep turning away, O thou turning away daughter? for the Lord hath created [something] new in the earth, Female will lead male about.

In other words, it seems G-d’s design that the “new woman” in Messiah Yeshua, shall no more “turn away,” as did Eve, to her husband, but remaining loyal to G-d alone, and true to her destiny as the mother of that Seed, both the literal, Yeshua, and the mystical Messiah, the Church, shall lead man about,out of the wilderness of the inefficiency of egotism into the glorious liberty of the children of G-d. For, who shall specially conquer Satan, if not the sex to whom G-d gave the honor from the beginning of being in eternal enmity against Satan, in the promise, “I will put enmity between thee and the woman?” But woman must be truly meek to fulfill this her promised destiny.

[chunkofcoal]

The Lord did say things would be turned upside down


Isa 29:14 Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid.

15: Woe unto them that seek deep to hide their counsel from the LORD, and their works are in the dark, and they say, Who seeth us? and who knoweth us?

16 Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding?

Not to interrupt your thread, but the "turning of things upside down" in that passage is about the people in verse 15. If they don't believe God can see them, then why are they seeking to hide their counsel and doing their works in the dark?

[ContraMundum]

How long wilt thou keep turning away, O thou turning away daughter? for the Lord hath created [something] new in the earth, Female will lead male about.

In other words, it seems G-d’s design that the “new woman” in Messiah Yeshua, shall no more “turn away,” as did Eve, to her husband, but remaining loyal to G-d alone, and true to her destiny as the mother of that Seed, both the literal, Yeshua, and the mystical Messiah, the Church, shall lead man about,out of the wilderness of the inefficiency of egotism into the glorious liberty of the children of G-d. For, who shall specially conquer Satan, if not the sex to whom G-d gave the honor from the beginning of being in eternal enmity against Satan, in the promise, “I will put enmity between thee and the woman?” But woman must be truly meek to fulfill this her promised destiny.

While this interpretation is rather obscure, I don't see how this has anything to do with the ministry, or how you harmonize this with the revelation given in the NT which is quite clear regarding gender roles.

Half of the problem here in this thread is that people are talking about the doctrine of gender roles before they've even thought about the doctrine of the ministry.

Once again, this thread has put the cart before the horse. It's best to decide which kind of ministry one is talking about before one decides which gender is called to it.

[Lulav]

I was replying to ozells post #96 :)

[visionary]

Half of the problem here in this thread is that people are talking about the doctrine of gender roles before they've even thought about the doctrine of the ministry.Understanding gender roles is all part of why men were choosen by God to be the ministers of His Temple.

[ContraMundum]

Understanding gender roles is all part of why men were choosen by God to be the ministers of His Temple.

I know that, you know that, but the others seem to be avoiding the real issue- what are the ministries prescribed in the NT and who is to fill them? Once we answer that, then we can question the "why" behind it all. :)

[Ivy]

Once again, this thread has put the cart before the horse. It's best to decide which kind of ministry one is talking about before one decides which gender is called to it.

:sorry: Oopsy. Right you are, CM.

[Ivy]

I know that, you know that, but the others seem to be avoiding the real issue- what are the ministries prescribed in the NT and who is to fill them? :)

and I ain't gwine down dere dis minnit :D .....but off the top of my head: apostles, pastors, teachers, evangelists, prophets, deacons. Prophecy, exhortation, discerning of spirits, helps, administration, tongues & interpretation of tongues, mercy, martyrdom.........probably more....

[ozell]

Not to interrupt your thread, but the "turning of things upside down" in that passage is about the people in verse 15. If they don't believe God can see them, then why are they seeking to hide their counsel and doing their works in the dark?



would you agree that this still happens in our day, and that Word of God, Our GOD is THE God of all people.


In our day we have people that say they believe in a God but don't know who the true and Living God is.

The Women in our day has stepped up saved the household from destruction, which is the responsibilty of the man.

whether they believe in God or not they know that the household has to be taken care of.

whether righteous or wicked the woman has filled in the gap.

[ozell]

Understanding gender roles is all part of why men were choosen by God to be the ministers of His Temple.


My answer is, God wanted to.

why? I really don't know

I do know I have ran across strong women and soft to weak men.

in the pilpit.

[Bananna]

Is it because women are already spiritual and it is the guys who need the practice?

Is it because guys are the example of Yeshua and we are not to think God is female?

Is it is because..... let's hear why God wanted men in the ministry.
Because the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world.

The husband and wife are ONE. If he ministers she ministers. The husband of one wife, tells us this is a man of at least 30 with one wife. A man and wife team are necessary imo to a healthy overseeing of the family and the congregation.

Counsel and example of marriage is best IMO.

I can't tell you how many times I've seen the wife not ministering with her husband in counseling sessions where I thought poor counsel was given by good christian men. I think Men need strong men leading for a healthy church.

I think anyone can preach the gospel. Just think headship belongs to the head of the household in the order of things.

I don't think there is a because gifts are so varied. Women tend to be pastors of their children, while hubby is gone as his representitive and overseer to them.
Women are the pastors of the womens groups and ministries and teachers of the younger women as the representitive of their head.

Sometimes I think it would be better if a wife was preaching some subjects.

bananna

[ContraMundum]

and I ain't gwine down dere dis minnit :D .....but off the top of my head: apostles, pastors, teachers, evangelists, prophets, deacons. Prophecy, exhortation, discerning of spirits, helps, administration, tongues & interpretation of tongues, mercy, martyrdom.........probably more....

Not to mention the more necessary and compulsary episkopos and presbyteros (overseer and elder)- every congregation is required to have at least one....and these orders are confined to males, according to the scriptures. :)

[chunkofcoal]

would you agree that this still happens in our day, and that Word of God, Our GOD is THE God of all people.

God is God and He knows what the people are doing - like it's written -
Isa 29:16 Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding?


In our day we have people that say they believe in a God but don't know who the true and Living God is.

There is a passage in Titus about that and Yeshua teaches us that trees are known by their fruit.
Tit 1:16 They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.

The Women in our day has stepped up saved the household from destruction, which is the responsibilty of the man.



whether they believe in God or not they know that the household has to be taken care of.

whether righteous or wicked the woman has filled in the gap.

Like Abigail who did right despite her husband's actions?
1Samuel 25

[Ivy]

Not to mention the more necessary and compulsary episkopos and presbyteros (overseer and elder)- every congregation is required to have at least one....and these orders are confined to males, according to the scriptures. :)

More power to 'em. :thumbsup:

So of the fifteenish or so ministries that were listed, in addition to overseer and elder, which ones are confined to males, and which ones are for both genders?

[ContraMundum]

More power to 'em. :thumbsup:

So of the fifteenish or so ministries that were listed, in addition to overseer and elder, which ones are confined to males, and which ones are for both genders?

They way I see it the only minitries confined to men are presbyter and episkopos. ( I see the orginal Apostolate now residing in the episcopacy, but the charism, not the office, of an apostle can also be with women, such as missionaries)

[johnd]

Before you run off to the snack bar and the powder room....

Let's pause to honor women and womanhood.

:clap:

Because these kinds of discussions tend to come across as guys putting down the gals. And while there are egomaniac jerks who do take every opportunity to belittle women let's just stop here and realize God sent woman in to help man. He was already given domination over the rest of the world so this was not what she was sent into the fray for.

:preach:

The role(s) of women are too often taken for granted, and ironically belittled most by those who would redefine roles and even gender to achieved their malcontented goals.

With the understanding that I JohnDBaptiste believe in A woman's movement and that the Church passed the buck on this necessary and worthy cause and the buck fell by default to the malcontents...

The feminists press the hardest when it comes to those who demean the roles of women. In recent years (a decade or so) they have been called down for belittling motherhood and stay-at-home wives and mothers (thankfully). But the strategy has been to try to get women to be discontented with women's roles by belittling them.

Women's roles are crucial and they are critical and they are vital, and they are honorable and to be honored on par with any male role and in fact (I have mothering in mind) far above the male role with regard to bringing the next generation into the world.

True, men have put women down throughout history. But that only means the devil and fallen human egos have been around and interfering for a very long time. There were religions where the female anatomy was worshiped... again anything and everything at at all cost to oppose God is the creed of the evil one. If that could be accomplished by getting people to worship baseball trading cards he'd do it...

So let's remember the value and honor and in fact commission of womanhood and of women by God. And remember that the Bible even when it speaks of roles being in disarray (women leading etc) it is not putting women down but addressing the fact that the order in which God set into motion that people can navigate best through this turbulent life will be in disarray and that is for our transgressions not the nature of women nor their belittlement...

And now, back to the movie...;)

[johnd]

I may be a simpleton but I look at it like this...

There are two ways to the mountaintop... the winding road pointed to by the word of God or the rugged, treacherous, dangerous, vertical climb up the cliff face...

Both can generally achieve the same goal but at what cost....!

[Ivy]

:preach:

The role(s) of women are too often taken for granted, and ironically belittled most by those who would redefine roles and even gender to achieved their malcontented goals.

With the understanding that I JohnDBaptiste believe in A woman's movement and that the Church passed the buck on this necessary and worthy cause and the buck fell by default to the malcontents...

The feminists press the hardest when it comes to those who demean the roles of women. In recent years (a decade or so) they have been called down for belittling motherhood and stay-at-home wives and mothers (thankfully). But the strategy has been to try to get women to be discontented with women's roles by belittling them.

Women's roles are crucial and they are critical and they are vital, and they are honorable and to be honored on par with any male role and in fact (I have mothering in mind) far above the male role with regard to bringing the next generation into the world.

True, men have put women down throughout history. But that only means the devil and fallen human egos have been around and interfering for a very long time. There were religions where the female anatomy was worshiped...



You just described the multi-billion dollar pornography industry, which is the modern day equivalent. And this form of "worship" of females is the worst put-down that the enemy could devise.

God did not design females to be worshipped, anyway; no one can bear the *weight of being worshipped but God alone.


+++++++++++++++++

I would have to agree that the strategy of feminists is to make women discontented with female roles, yes. But they've been able to make a case like this because there are plenty of fathers and husbands out there that make it a misery to be a woman.

There are many good men, I know, but the enemy is very easily able to forward his lies & agenda squarely on the platform built by mistreatment from the bad ones.

The enemy is able to sell a whole program whereby women believe that the only way to get love, self-esteem, well-being in life is a) to deny their womanhood b) flaunt their sexuality or c) use manipulation or witchcraft.

[Ivy]

They way I see it the only minitries confined to men are presbyter and episkopos. ( I see the orginal Apostolate now residing in the episcopacy, but the charism, not the office, of an apostle can also be with women, such as missionaries)

Wow, I'm surprised. And here I was hoping to get out of any office that involves public speaking, like teaching :D ;)

Of course, the Scriptures say "not many of you should wish to be teachers," so I'm definitely in compliance with that verse. ;-)

(Pastor, I assume, is the same as overseer or elder.)

[Lulav]

Aaaaaaaaaaamen!

Johnd, I answered a lot more than that one sentence within your post. But obviously like the link I posted you can't take the time to read and answer questions, rather it seems you would rather zip off one liners. This is ( I thought) a serious conversation, but you seem to take it frivolously and that is insulting to some of the women here who have taken the time to participate.

[ContraMundum]

(Pastor, I assume, is the same as overseer or elder.)

The title pastor could be the same, depending on the tradition one is in. For example, pentecostals call their elders pastors.

But, the charism of a pastor could be given to anyone, not necessarily just an elder. So, an elder may or may not have the charism of a pastor, and a pastor may not be an elder. Many elders are pastors, some are more like teachers. With some it's hard to tell or they may have both charisms.

Interesting....

[johnd]

You just described the multi-billion dollar pornography industry, which is the modern day equivalent. And this form of "worship" of females is the worst put-down