Respect for Women

[Woody]

What do you all think of this quote:

Quote:

"Neither man nor woman stands along; both stand essentially together and depend on each other. This interdependence of one upon the other is cited lest man should take to himself too much superiority, and regarding woman as made solely for his pleasure, treat her as being inferior, and not entitled to due respect." 6 BC p. 757

I thought it was kinda cool. Well expressed.

[phkrause]

She definitely backs up the Bible.

pk

[Woody]

What do you all think of this quote:

Quote:

"Neither man nor woman stands along; both stand essentially together and depend on each other. This interdependence of one upon the other is cited lest man should take to himself too much superiority, and regarding woman as made solely for his pleasure, treat her as being inferior, and not entitled to due respect." 6 BC p. 757

I thought it was kinda cool. Well expressed.

Sorry. After looking at this I see I committed a typo when I was typing this. I am human. I know this may be a surprise to many.

Anyways ... Neither man nor woman stands along

Should be .. Neither man nor woman stands alone

Red takes full responsibility for the accuracy of this statement.

[True-believer]

Hi all...

I lost a very good friend a while ago because I didn't see things the way he seen things in the Bible...

The issue is what the New Testament says... about woman...

It states in 1 Timothy that WOMAN must remain silent in Church, I tried to tell my friend it isn't saying that they have to be quiet in Church now, but in his Church they are left quiet...

But in the Church that I go to, woman is free to speak in Church...

But, because we both differ on this on issue, he didn't want to stay as friends, and so, he left our friendship...

All because I am not against Female Speakers like he is...

What are your thoughts???

One of my favourite female speakers is Paula White, currently she is doing some preaching//teaching through the book of Levitucus--it's really awesome.

You can check her out here: www.paulawhite.org

[SouthAfrican]

The Bible says the following :

Quote:

1Ti 2:8-14

(8) I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.

(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.

You surely have asked an interesting question... what says the others?

[Beryl]

Quote:

But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

At the time that Paul was writing, that was the normal behaviour. Woman could not sit with their husbands in the synagogues, they had to sit in the "woman's section" and were not allowed to speak.

Christ treated men and women as equal. Christianity was new, and subject to much persecution, etc. My understanding is that Paul did not want the freedoms of Christianity to get in the way of drawing people into the churches. Paul had no hesitation of having women involved in teaching in general. Read Romans 16 and see how many women helpers there were! There are other texts that I could give, but that is sufficient for now.

If you look at the context of any statements, that will give you a clue as to the position as it was at that time.

God bless,

Beryl

Beryl

[John317]

I think it was wrong of your "friend" to stop being your friend because of a disagreement over theology.

The NT doesn't say women can't speak under any conditions in the church. (1 Cor. 1: 2-16 refers to women speaking in church.)

The context of Paul's statements in that regard has to do with women usurping authority over man, ie. taking the man's role in leadership. Notice Paul's reference to Adam and Eve. In the case of Eve, what happened when the woman took on the leadership role that should have been Adam's? The woman was deceived, not Adam, and it resulted in the Fall. Therefore, God's commandment (not Paul's, as shown in 1 Cor. 14: 37) is that men-- and not women-- should be the pastor and elder (leader) of the local congregations. He's saying that women can speak in church as long as they're supervised by men in the leadership roles.

This is a very unpopular position to take in our modern world, it's true, but that's what the word of God says.

The Bible allows for women to teach and to work in various ministries, such as evangelism, women's ministries, children's ministries, music ministries, Bible work, etc.

[SouthAfrican]

HEY TRUE-BELIEVER

YES I AGREE with JOHN317 that is was wrong for you

friend to leave you....but many people will leave

us because of our understanding of the bible...

I still have people that I call causal friends that when

we get together we can not talk about the bible....

dgrimm60

Same here - got a friend here who doesn't believe - yet he respects our standing, and will also not bother us on the Sabbaths.

[Woody]

Quote:

At the time that Paul was writing, that was the normal behaviour. Woman could not sit with their husbands in the synagogues, they had to sit in the "woman's section" and were not allowed to speak.

I experienced the same thing when I went to Academy. The male students were required to sit on one side of the sanctuary and females on the other. So, one doesn't have to go back too far. And while some may feel I am old. I AM NOT THAT OLD.

[Woody]

The Bible is clear that women can perform any of the gifts of the Spirit such as being a Pastor. So ... Go for it women.

[missionlady]

Paraphrase of something stated earlier: Women can teach, etc only under supervision from a man.

I have a couple of questions. The previous was stated, because Eve was deceived.

My question: Which is worse (1) to be deceived, or (2) to knowingly sin?

Eve (who does not represent all women in every way) was deceived and

Adam (who does not represent all men in every way) knowingly sinned.

So which is worse?

Next question.

How does the following situation fit in with women allowed as leaders only when supervised by a man?

"Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was leading Israel at that time. She held court under the Palm of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim, and the Israelites came to her to have their disputes decided. She sent for Barak son of Abinoam from Kedesh in Naphtali and said to him, "The LORD, the God of Israel, commands you: 'Go, take with you ten thousand men of Naphtali and Zebulun and lead the way to Mount Tabor. I will lure Sisera, the commander of Jabin's army, with his chariots and his troops to the Kishon River and give him into your hands.' "

Barak said to her, "If you go with me, I will go; but if you don't go with me, I won't go."

Judges 4:4-8

[Michaeneu]

Paraphrase of something stated earlier: Women can teach, etc only under supervision from a man.

I have a couple of questions. The previous was stated, because Eve was deceived.

My question: Which is worse (1) to be deceived, or (2) to knowingly sin?

Eve (who does not represent all women in every way) was deceived and

Adam (who does not represent all men in every way) knowingly sinned.

So which is worse?

[olger]

I agree that husbands & wives each have a unique place in the family & church. We need each other. There are different, and complimentary roles for each gender.

To husbands (my words)

If I make all the decisions as a husband, and don’t take time to love my wife—she will feel rejected. Be assertive, but be kind. God created men to be dominant, & to love as He does. (Ephesians 5; Genesis 2-3).

There are 7 Biblical Qualities for Husbands.

• A commitment to love. (Ephesians 5:25,28, 33)

• A commitment to nourish. (Ephesians 5:29)

• A commitment to cherish. (Ephesians 5:29)

• A commitment to honor. (1 Peter 3:7)

• A commitment to openness. (1 Peter 3:7)

• A commitment to cleansing. (Ephesians 5:26)

• A commitment to Godly leadership (Genesis 33:14; Ephesians 5:23).

There are 6 Biblical Qualities for Wives:

• A commitment to respond (Ephesians 5:25,28, 33)

• A commitment to respect. (Ephesians 5:33)

• A commitment to submission. (Ephesians 5:22-24; 1 Peter 3:1, 5; Colossians 3:18)

• A commitment to a meek, gentle spirit. (1 Peter 3:4)

• A commitment to a quiet, peaceable spirit. (1 Peter 3:4)

• A Comittment to help (Genesis 2:18, 20).

"Let my joy be in you" (John 15:11)

og

[missionlady]

"I guess the reason for former was lust--to be like Yahweh; the reason for the latter was love, to be with the woman. The answer is self evident."

Was is really love or did Adam maybe act selfishly in that he didn't want to be without Eve and he lacked faith?

I'm sorry the answer doesn't seem "self evident" to me.

"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." 1 Cor. 11:3

Do some study into the meaning of the original words used. The word translated as head is not referring to boss. It is referring to a term which means something like "point man". Think of the soldiers going through the jungles in Vietnam. What was the purpose of the point man? Wasn't he the one that ventured forth into danger ahead of the others, to warn of dangers ahead? What did he do when he spotted something? Did he give orders? No, he reported it back to the officer or some other soldier that was in charge. The point man was NOT the boss.

If Deborah was being supervised by a male-God, then why would women today have to have a human male supervise them?

[Michaeneu]

"I guess the reason for former was lust--to be like Yahweh; the reason for the latter was love, to be with the woman. The answer is self evident."

Was is really love or did Adam maybe act selfishly in that he didn't want to be without Eve and he lacked faith?

I'm sorry the answer doesn't seem "self evident" to me.

"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." 1 Cor. 11:3

Do some study into the meaning of the original words used. The word translated as head is not referring to boss. It is referring to a term which means something like "point man". Think of the soldiers going through the jungles in Vietnam. What was the purpose of the point man? Wasn't he the one that ventured forth into danger ahead of the others, to warn of dangers ahead? What did he do when he spotted something? Did he give orders? No, he reported it back to the officer or some other soldier that was in charge. The point man was NOT the boss.

If Deborah was being supervised by a male-God, then why would women today have to have a human male supervise them?

When you queried as to which act was the worse transgression in the garden, the woman’s or the man’s, it was obvious you were attempting to put the greater onus upon the man. My response was to point out both the motivations of their individual transgressions. Even if Adam’s motivation was selfishness for the woman and lack of faith, Eve’s motivation was still lust—to be like Yahweh, which is blasphemy. Like I said the answer is self-evident in the natural order of things.

It’s poor, poor analysis to view Christ as our point man that reports back to us, the officer in charge. It’s poor, poor analysis to view the Father as Christ’s point man that reports back to him, the officer in charge. And it’s poor, poor analysis to view man in the conjugal relationship as a point man in war that reports back to the wife, who is the officer in charge. That is your analysis of 1 Cor. 11:3! All this sounds like the ramifications of the feminist movement that has been the bane and dissolution of the family. The natural order of the family is upheld by 1 Corinthians 11:3, your poor, poor analysis notwithstanding. As the wife of a man Deborah was required to submit to him under Yah’s natural order.

How can a natural order of things exit, when natural fibers in man resist?

Michael

[jasd]

QR frame:

There are some what sez..., that the OT Ruach is feminine in both gender (do Gds have actual and/or demonstrative gender?) and grammatical application. There are also thems what sez...,

that Abel's more acceptable sacrifice was feminine by nature.

Say what! wha's that say?

There are thems also what sez..., that Abel's sacrifice typified

Christ, the Redeemer. Ummm...

Where does Writ place Adam at the time of Eve's 'deception'? and what was he doing - or not doing there? Why?

[missionlady]

Michael,

I'm afraid you have greatly misjudged me. I am not a feminist trying to show that women are superior to men. My dad taught me years ago that to believe that is just as stupid as trying to prove that men are superior to women. (No matter how smart or strong you are, I'm sure there can be found someone--even a woman--smarter or stronger than you are. And the same is true the other way around.) My point is that stereotyping because of gender or race or whatever is not usually a very sound way to judge people.

"...it was obvious you were attempting to put the greater onus upon the man"

How could this be obvious since it is not true?

It seems to be believed that Eve's sin was worse. My question was 'Which was worse?'

IS one worse than the other?

"It’s poor, poor analysis to view Christ as our point man that reports back to us, the officer in charge."

I said that the word meant something like 'point man'. Exact translations are hard. (I'm not the one that came up with that. I am paraphrasing from a MALE Bible scholar.)

I didn't say that we are the officer. I would think a better comparison would be that we are one of the inexperienced new soldiers somewhere in the line between the pointman and the officer. Even that doesn't really fit exactly. It wasn't meant to be an exact comparison. But Jesus does take the "hits" for us and warn us of danger. Maybe husbands are meant to do that for their wives.

"All this sounds like the ramifications of the feminist movement that has been the bane and dissolution of the family."

Hopefully, you are not accusing me of being part of or responsible for this. I have been married 32 years and homeschooled my four children. Our family is strong, it is not falling apart!

Happy Sabbath and God Bless!

[Robert]

The Bible is clear that women can perform any of the gifts of the Spirit such as being a Pastor. So ... Go for it women.

Okay...I'll play the the bad guy (actually I'm neutral on this subject):

12 I [Paul] do not let women teach men or have authority over them. Let them listen quietly. [why?] 13 For God made Adam first, and afterward he made Eve. 14 And it was the woman, not Adam, who was deceived by Satan, and sin was the result. [NLT]

And Ellen:

Eve was told of the sorrow and pain that must henceforth be her portion. And the Lord said, "Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." In the creation, God had made her the equal of Adam. Had they remained obedient to God--in harmony with His great law of love--they would ever have been in harmony with each other; but sin had brought discord, and now their union could be maintained and harmony preserved only by submission on the part of the one or the other. Eve had been the first in transgression; and she had fallen into temptation by separating from her companion, contrary to the divine direction. It was by her solicitation that Adam sinned, and she was now placed in subjection to her husband. Had the principles enjoined in the law of God been cherished by the fallen race, this sentence, though growing out of the results of sin, would have proved a blessing to them; but man's abuse of the supremacy thus given him has too often rendered the lot of woman very bitter, and made her life a burden. AH 115

She [Eve] was perfectly happy in her Eden home by her husband's side (as an equal); but, like restless modern Eves, she was flattered that there was a higher sphere than that which God had assigned her. But in attempting to climb higher than her original position, she fell far below it. 3T 483

Just quoting...

[Robert]

Even if Adam’s motivation was selfishness for the woman and lack of faith, Eve’s motivation was still lust—to be like Yahweh, which is blasphemy.

1] First all remember that both Adam & Eve were created in the likeness of God. This simply means that both of them were perfectly reflecting the self-emptying agape love of God.

2] There was no "indwelling sin" - there was no sin nature. They had no propensity to do wrong.

3] Therefore sin, in the case of Adam & Eve, is unexplainable. Hence it is called, "the mystery of iniquity".

Now, having stated these 3 facts, let's examine Adam & Eve's sins:

First, the warning: "You may freely eat any fruit in the garden except fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If you eat of its fruit, you will surely die."

Eve:

1 Now the serpent was the shrewdest of all the creatures the LORD God had made. "Really?" he asked the woman. "Did God really say you must not eat any of the fruit in the garden?" 2 "Of course we may eat it," the woman told him. 3 "It's only the fruit from the tree at the center of the garden that we are not allowed to eat. God says we must not eat it or even touch it, or we will die." 4 "You won't die!" the serpent hissed. 5 "God knows that your eyes will be opened when you eat it. You will become just like God, knowing everything, both good and evil." 6 The woman was convinced. The fruit looked so fresh and delicious, and it would make her so wise! So she ate some of the fruit. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her. Then he ate it, too.

Note the dialog was with Eve & the serpent, but Adam was by her side. They were both at the tree, but it doesn't say how & why they arrived at its location.

Okay...so Eve's temptation (which in itself is a mystery - I mean how could a sinless being be tempted to sin?) was to move up...she coveted a higher position, which was also Lucifer's temptation, i.e., to be as God.

BTW, because of Adam & Eve's sin we are born "bent-to-self" - i.e., to say, we are all striving to move up. It's in everything we do....education, sports, etc.

But for Eve this was an unnatural act because she was in the likeness of God. Nevertheless she was first in transgression.

Adam:

Adam was by her side when Eve took the fruit and ate. Why did he eat it also? According to Paul, Eve was deceived, but Adam knew it was wrong. So why did Adam join his wife in eating the fruit? Again, I can explain sin so I can't explain Adam's motive.

Eve was tempted with power to become "as gods", what was Adam tempted with? I don't know....

[Tom Wetmore]

"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." 1 Cor. 11:3

Do some study into the meaning of the original words used. The word translated as head is not referring to boss....

If Deborah was being supervised by a male-God, then why would women today have to have a human male supervise them?

There is a connect here in my editing of what you posted... and a very direct connection to what Redwood first posted to start this off.

The NT is clear that Christ, and Christ alone, is the Head of the Church. That means all the rest of us, male and female, young and old, pastors, GC President, children - are the body of Christ. Not even male pastors and male church leaders are to assume a headship notion within the church as that is usurping the God given designation as Christ being the head. To even assume by arguing against women in leadership or pastoral roles as having any form of headship role within the church is to presume men in the church as being the head.

A body can have only one head. (Multi-headed beasts in prophecy stand for something quite opposite of the church...) To claim headship for anyone in the church is to usurp the God ordained role of Christ for the church. And we know what that means in terms of prophecy. To take away or usurp the one true head of the church is the spirit of the Anti-Christ.

The connection to what Redwood posted? It's all about connection, relationship, unity - oneness. The vital connection between head and body is essential for life itself. One cannot exist without the other. They are interdependent. If you cut the head off the body dies. It is like Jesus statement of the vine and branches.

The headship idea as authority is a wrong headed approach. "Can one part of the body declare itself superior to another?" Can the heart say to the brain, "I can live without you," or the brain say the same to the heart? One cannot live without the other. Consider Paul's statement more closely where he also says that God the Father is the head of Christ. Do you think he was speaking of authority, or the unity and oneness of the Godhead? (notice that head includes all three...) We, male and female together, are created in the image of God. See Genesis 1:27. And that is what the quote Redwood posted is about.

Tom

[Robert]

When God make Adam & Eve He made them with a love that was outward. There was no self-love is God's agape, but it was Lucifer who invented a u-turn agape. What do I mean?

God created Lucifer with a love that flowed outward. He created in Lucifer a love that doesn't seek its own wealth, but another's. But Lucifer turned that outward love back to himself. Instead of loving others only, he now loved himself. We call that self-love. The Bible calls it iniquity.

Adam transgressed - i.e., he broke a known command. What was his motive? Most likely Eve.

Eve too transgressed, but the Bible gives the motive (which I think is worse) for her sin: "you shall be as gods"

Now what was Lucifer's sin? Right, to become like the most high. The same sin as Eve. Eve coveted position - she became bent-to-self. Adam broke a rule.

In other words Adam's sin was idolatry - He loved Eve over God.

Eve's sin is the basis of all sinning. She transgressed because she bought into Lucifer's system of self-love (the essence of all sin)!

[Michaeneu]

Michael,

I'm afraid you have greatly misjudged me. I am not a feminist trying to show that women are superior to men. My dad taught me years ago that to believe that is just as stupid as trying to prove that men are superior to women. (No matter how smart or strong you are, I'm sure there can be found someone--even a woman--smarter or stronger than you are. And the same is true the other way around.) My point is that stereotyping because of gender or race or whatever is not usually a very sound way to judge people.

"...it was obvious you were attempting to put the greater onus upon the man"

How could this be obvious since it is not true?

It seems to be believed that Eve's sin was worse. My question was 'Which was worse?'

IS one worse than the other?

"It’s poor, poor analysis to view Christ as our point man that reports back to us, the officer in charge."

I said that the word meant something like 'point man'. Exact translations are hard. (I'm not the one that came up with that. I am paraphrasing from a MALE Bible scholar.)

I didn't say that we are the officer. I would think a better comparison would be that we are one of the inexperienced new soldiers somewhere in the line between the pointman and the officer. Even that doesn't really fit exactly. It wasn't meant to be an exact comparison. But Jesus does take the "hits" for us and warn us of danger. Maybe husbands are meant to do that for their wives.

"All this sounds like the ramifications of the feminist movement that has been the bane and dissolution of the family."

Hopefully, you are not accusing me of being part of or responsible for this. I have been married 32 years and homeschooled my four children. Our family is strong, it is not falling apart!

Happy Sabbath and God Bless!

Hello Missionlady,

I don’t think I misjudged you; from your terminology I merely made natural discernments. Cases in point, if you didn’t want to further controversy between genders on this thread why use the expression of “whose sin was worse”? You may have not been the initiator, but you certainly furthered it. Case in point, if you didn’t think the “point man” explanation was adequate, then why the hasty use of it? If your intentions were something other than what your terminology meant I’ll accept your further explanation, but I hardly think I misjudged you.

Nevertheless, the natural order of family or the body of Christ has a male at its head.

“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.” Gen. 3:16

Until women are no longer given in marriage, the natural order is that the male rule over the woman in marriage. That there are smarter and stronger women than men, I concede, but in marriage it is Yah’s natural order that man is at its head as the Father is the head of Christ.

I think it is praiseworthy that you have a marriage of 32 years and have home schooled your children. The praise is also in Christ as head of your household.

Yours in Yahshua

Michael

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: missionlady

"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." 1 Cor. 11:3

Do some study into the meaning of the original words used. The word translated as head is not referring to boss....

If Deborah was being supervised by a male-God, then why would women today have to have a human male supervise them?

There is a connect here in my editing of what you posted... and a very direct connection to what Redwood first posted to start this off.

The NT is clear that Christ, and Christ alone, is the Head of the Church. That means all the rest of us, male and female, young and old, pastors, GC President, children - are the body of Christ. Not even male pastors and male church leaders are to assume a headship notion within the church as that is usurping the God given designation as Christ being the head. To even assume by arguing against women in leadership or pastoral roles as having any form of headship role within the church is to presume men in the church as being the head.

A body can have only one head. (Multi-headed beasts in prophecy stand for something quite opposite of the church...) To claim headship for anyone in the church is to usurp the God ordained role of Christ for the church. And we know what that means in terms of prophecy. To take away or usurp the one true head of the church is the spirit of the Anti-Christ.

The connection to what Redwood posted? It's all about connection, relationship, unity - oneness. The vital connection between head and body is essential for life itself. One cannot exist without the other. They are interdependent. If you cut the head off the body dies. It is like Jesus statement of the vine and branches.

The headship idea as authority is a wrong headed approach. "Can one part of the body declare itself superior to another?" Can the heart say to the brain, "I can live without you," or the brain say the same to the heart? One cannot live without the other. Consider Paul's statement more closely where he also says that God the Father is the head of Christ. Do you think he was speaking of authority, or the unity and oneness of the Godhead? (notice that head includes all three...) We, male and female together, are created in the image of God. See Genesis 1:27. And that is what the quote Redwood posted is about.

Tom

So there is no doubt ... here it is.

[olger]

I thought the Bible said that woman was a "weaker vessel."

regards,

`oG

[Tom Wetmore]

But Paul, a man, referred to himself as a cracked pot... So you chose - weaker or broken...