Sonnet
New member
An atheist might cite this to a mate as a reason to not take scripture seriously.
Does 1 Timothy 2:11-14 justify the sceptic?
- Thread starter Sonnet
- Start date
An atheist might cite this to a mate as a reason to not take scripture seriously.
The Bible says otherwise. The Lord Jesus Christ said otherwise. He said if he was lifted up (crucified) he would draw all people to him. That includes "atheists".
Sonnet
New member
But my statement does not deny that.
Sonnet
New member
Your post is reportable, I'd say.
If you go to church - do the women keep silent? If not then you wouldn't, I presume, be embarrassed to cite 1 Tim 2:11-14 and 1 Cor.14 34-35 to them?
Do you? Will you?
Sonnet
New member
1 Peter 3:15
But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,
I'm not sure 'obey Paul you heathen' does that.
That woman needs to listen to Paul and the Holy Bible. If that is an infraction here, then so be it.
Sonnet
New member
'That woman'? No - you directed your statement to me.
I note that you have not answered my post.
exminister
Well-known member
Paul in Corinthians says it's shameful for men to have long hair.
The Biblical world view on women and slavery are not like today. So I understand it in that context.
Is there anything in the Bible you like particularly its' major themes?
In post quotes? You do have an aptitude problem.
genuineoriginal
New member
Both ideas were extrapolated from the verses in question as the most logical way for the change in the commandment to happen and the serpent's deceit to happen.
Adam went against God, even though he was not deceived.
Yes, so the only real question is why you are so upset that you chose to troll a Christian forum.
Sonnet
New member
We may debate about how, but we agree Eve was deceived.
Nevertheless, Adam must have decided that whatever God had said regarding the fruit, the consequences were bearable.
Troll? No, I am in earnest. Why are people taking such offence?
Assuming you go to Church, do the women follow Paul's sanctions? If not, do you cite him?
Sonnet
New member
If I have then you haven't demonstrated it. Would appreciate you answering my posts please.
Sonnet
New member
Are you saying Paul erred regarding his reasoning? Are you saying that it was wrong of him to point the finger at Eve and not Adam?
I would say that the passion of Christ is very interesting, but I don't want to derail the thread.
genuineoriginal
New member
There have been a number of non-Christian trolls that have popped up on this site that acted just like you have done on this thread.
Are you getting your material from those anti-Christian websites?
I do not go to any church that builds a large doctrine on a single verse in scripture that appears to be encouraging people to follow the customs of the society of their day.
1 Corinthians 11:14 14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? |
Yes, there are men with long hair, short hair, and even bald men in church.
Why?
Because when Paul wrote this, he lived in a culture dominated by the Romans, and the Romans had men cut their hair short and shave off their beards.
During the time of Moses, the men had longer hair and full beards.
In the 1960's the people with long hair and beards were in rebellion against society and religion.
Nowadays, homosexual men are more likely to be clean shaven with short hair and conservatives run around with long hair and beards.
Different times, different customs.
Just don't make it a dogma that takes you away from the truth.
Sonnet
New member
I wasn't aware of such trolling. No, the post is without reference to any website.
However, Paul is not drawing from custom - he cites scriptural reason for his sanction. Paul also says that "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness"
I see your point here, but my previous statement still holds does it not?
Sonnet
New member
The Catholic Church does not appear to agree with you since they do not ordinate women.
Sonnet
New member
The context regarding Paul's sanction is clear from the first chapter of his letter:
1 Timothy 1:3-7
As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain people not to teach false doctrines any longer or to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. Such things promote controversial speculations rather than advancing God’s work—which is by faith. The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. Some have departed from these and have turned to meaningless talk. They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm.
As this thread identifies, Paul numbers women among those whom he tells Timothy to 'command...not to teach' - because women, he thinks, are not to be trusted because they are prone to deception....that they would teach such false doctrines.
Is Paul correct in his assertion?
1 Timothy 1:3-7
As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain people not to teach false doctrines any longer or to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. Such things promote controversial speculations rather than advancing God’s work—which is by faith. The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. Some have departed from these and have turned to meaningless talk. They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm.
As this thread identifies, Paul numbers women among those whom he tells Timothy to 'command...not to teach' - because women, he thinks, are not to be trusted because they are prone to deception....that they would teach such false doctrines.
Is Paul correct in his assertion?
Last edited: