On The Subject Of Womenfolk

[NotAshamed]

Man, this sort of thing really burns my cookies!

 

Let's actually consider a couple of other Bible verses, from Proverbs 31. Please, note the sarcasm in my comments dripping like rain from the trees.

 

Pro 31:11 The heart of her husband trusts safely in her, so that he shall have no need of plunder. 

 

This is preposterous!  The Bible has the audacity to suggest that woman can be strong and capable?  Her husband is actually supposed to be able to trust in her judgment and capabilities?   What an outrage!

 

Pro 31:16 She considers a field, and buys it; with the fruit of her hands she plants a vineyard. 

 

Yikes!  You mean a woman is actually allowed to engage in an honest-to-goodness business transaction, even a transaction as significant as real-estate? Who would have thought it possible!

 

Pro 31:26 She opens her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue is the law of kindness. 

 

Wisdom!?  Wisdom!?  I thought only men knew anything about that.  This is the last straw.  A woman is capable and allowed to engage in deep thought and is actually able to speak with serious thought and wisdom?!  This can't really be true, can it?

 

 

I hope you all get the point.  All this dandy-rot about inferiority of women is just that.  I understand, accept, and agree with the Biblical pattern of male leadership and authority in the home and church.  But, many of these types of conversations about women just end up being insulting to women beyond the statements and intentions of the Bible.

[heartstrings]

The wise woman of Proverbs was not only an entrepreneur who could buy and develop real estate but she was also a boss; she had female servants, Yet I believe she did all that and still helped, supported and honored her husband as her head....AND...her husband honored and praised her as well, the Bible says so. When we love and lift each other up, instead of tearing one another down, it honors God.

 

"Honey, sweetie, sugar plumb, cutie....I love you, that meal was the finest I ever had....you sure are cute!". Help her with the laundry. with the dishes. give her a back rub. Smile! Put some honey back in the honeymoon fellas! AND your prayers will not be hindered.......

[DeaconDixon]

Man, this sort of thing really burns my cookies!

 

Let's actually consider a couple of other Bible verses, from Proverbs 31. Please, note the sarcasm in my comments dripping like rain from the trees.

 

Pro 31:11 The heart of her husband trusts safely in her, so that he shall have no need of plunder. 

 

This is preposterous!  The Bible has the audacity to suggest that woman can be strong and capable?  Her husband is actually supposed to be able to trust in her judgment and capabilities?   What an outrage!

 

Pro 31:16 She considers a field, and buys it; with the fruit of her hands she plants a vineyard. 

 

Yikes!  You mean a woman is actually allowed to engage in an honest-to-goodness business transaction, even a transaction as significant as real-estate? Who would have thought it possible!

 

Pro 31:26 She opens her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue is the law of kindness. 

 

Wisdom!?  Wisdom!?  I thought only men knew anything about that.  This is the last straw.  A woman is capable and allowed to engage in deep thought and is actually able to speak with serious thought and wisdom?!  This can't really be true, can it?

 

 

I hope you all get the point.  All this dandy-rot about inferiority of women is just that.  I understand, accept, and agree with the Biblical pattern of male leadership and authority in the home and church.  But, many of these types of conversations about women just end up being insulting to women beyond the statements and intentions of the Bible.

That woman was also not allowed to wear clothes of mixed fibers or eat a porkchop.  Do you understand the difference from before and after Jesus?

[No Nicolaitans]

That woman was also not allowed to wear clothes of mixed fibers or eat a porkchop.  Do you understand the difference from before and after Jesus?

 

Please be reminded that part of your "What a true Christian Believes" doctrine relies on "before Jesus"?  

 

I personally don't think you believe any of this silliness that you're posting.  I think you're... 

1. an unbeliever who is trying to prove a point of some kind; such as, taking the Bible literally.  If so, you're not succeeding; you're only making yourself look foolish.
2. just here to have some type of...what you think will be fun.

Either way, I will put Romans 16:17 into use now.

[DeaconDixon]

Please be reminded that part of your "What a true Christian Believes" doctrine relies on "before Jesus"?  

 

I personally don't think you believe any of this silliness that you're posting.  I think you're... 

1. an unbeliever who is trying to prove a point of some kind; such as, taking the Bible literally.  If so, you're not succeeding; you're only making yourself look foolish.
2. just here to have some type of...what you think will be fun.

Either way, I will put Romans 16:17 into use now.

I personally think you, sadly, believe the unBiblical silliness that you're posting.

[DeaconDixon]

http://youtu.be/8LEHYOuzKx8

[Miss Daisy]

Maybe Deacon is from Westboro Baptist Church. Or a white supremacy church in Montana or Utah. I think he's throwing stuff on the wall to see if it will stick.

[ASongOfDegrees]

Some of that nasally northeastern Yankee accent seems more foreign and hard to listen to than hearing and Englishman, Aussie or Kiwi.

Nasally? Do you mean Brooklyn accents? Being from the NE this is the only accents I've heard that might fit your profile.

[ASongOfDegrees]

Honestly it seems strange to se someone preach an entire sermon about women. Nowhere in the Bible do I see any sermons preached solely on the subject of women. Yes, women are touched on, as are men and children, but I never see sermons on them. Not sure I see any reason to preach an entire sermon on 'women-folk'.

I have on a few occasions. 

[DeaconDixon]

Maybe Deacon is from Westboro Baptist Church. Or a white supremacy church in Montana or Utah. I think he's throwing stuff on the wall to see if it will stick.

[swathdiver]

Landover Baptist DeDi?

[John81]

Nasally? Do you mean Brooklyn accents? Being from the NE this is the only accents I've heard that might fit your profile.

Yes. That and many of those around Boston. So hard on the ears!

[HappyChristian]

I didn't listen to the whole sermon this time (it's been posted before, right "Deacon"?), but I did notice that he was talking about Deut. 22:5 and said that it's just as much an abomination for a man to put on women's apparel as vice versa (I know not in those words, I just shortened it).  And that is what we've always been taught, right?  Well, that isn't what the Bible says.  See, by wording it that way, it is the act that is an abomination. But that isn't what God said.  He said, "...for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God."

 

It isn't the act of putting on opposite apparel that is abomination.  It is the PERSON who does it that is.  

 

And, BTW - it is pure speculation that Adam didn't know what fruit he was eating. I don't believe he was ignorant of it.  After all, he was the dresser and keeper of the garden.  But then, when one wants to put their own spin on what God says, it's easy to add opinions and try to make them sound like fact.  Sadly, that happens all too often in pulpits today.

[robmac68]

I didn't listen to the whole sermon this time (it's been posted before, right "Deacon"?), but I did notice that he was talking about Deut. 22:5 and said that it's just as much an abomination for a man to put on women's apparel as vice versa (I know not in those words, I just shortened it).  And that is what we've always been taught, right?  Well, that isn't what the Bible says.  See, by wording it that way, it is the act that is an abomination. But that isn't what God said.  He said, "...for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God."

 

It isn't the act of putting on opposite apparel that is abomination.  It is the PERSON who does it that is.  

 

And, BTW - it is pure speculation that Adam didn't know what fruit he was eating. I don't believe he was ignorant of it.  After all, he was the dresser and keeper of the garden.  But then, when one wants to put their own spin on what God says, it's easy to add opinions and try to make them sound like fact.  Sadly, that happens all too often in pulpits today.

I believe Adam is fully to blame.  The Bible tells us that by one man sin entered the world.  This would be Adam.  In Genesis 3:6 we read that Eve  "gave also unto her husband with her."  It sounds like Adam was there with her and letting this snake talk to his wife.  Shame on him for not defending his wifes honor and telling the snake that he didnt have the right to talk with his wife, especially trying to deceive her.  The same today with the "spineless" men who force their wife to answer the door and deal with the salesmen or the soul-winner or Jehovah's witness.  The front door is the way into the house and the man is supposed to provide protection to his family.  Men need to be protective of their wives and Adam was not.

[HappyChristian]

I believe Adam is fully to blame.  The Bible tells us that by one man sin entered the world.  This would be Adam.  In Genesis 3:6 we read that Eve  "gave also unto her husband with her."  It sounds like Adam was there with her and letting this snake talk to his wife.  Shame on him for not defending his wifes honor and telling the snake that he didnt have the right to talk with his wife, especially trying to deceive her.  The same today with the "spineless" men who force their wife to answer the door and deal with the salesmen or the soul-winner or Jehovah's witness.  The front door is the way into the house and the man is supposed to provide protection to his family.  Men need to be protective of their wives and Adam was not.

[John81]

I believe Adam is fully to blame.  The Bible tells us that by one man sin entered the world.  This would be Adam.  In Genesis 3:6 we read that Eve  "gave also unto her husband with her."  It sounds like Adam was there with her and letting this snake talk to his wife.  Shame on him for not defending his wifes honor and telling the snake that he didnt have the right to talk with his wife, especially trying to deceive her.  The same today with the "spineless" men who force their wife to answer the door and deal with the salesmen or the soul-winner or Jehovah's witness.  The front door is the way into the house and the man is supposed to provide protection to his family.  Men need to be protective of their wives and Adam was not.

Agreed! Scripture tells us that Eve was deceived but Adam knew what he was doing. Adam failed to protect his wife, failed to protect himself, failed to honour God.

[DeaconDixon]

1 Tim.2:11-15
"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing"

[LindaR]

Adam was created first, and the woman was formed afterwards. God formed the man to lead, and He formed the woman to follow. This does not mean the woman is to be a door mat. She is a highly exalted creature made in God's image; she has beautiful gifts which have brought manifold benefits to mankind; she is to be valued and cherished. Her place in creation is simply different from that of the man.  ...Things Hard To Be Understood: 1 Timothy 2:11-14 (Excerpts)

 

(A woman is by no means inferior to a man.  Any man who believes he can “rule the roost” with an “iron fist” because he believes a woman (and I’m speaking of a husband/wife relationship) to be inferior, is a very insecure man.  If he believes he has the right to “spank” his wife as he does his children, is a coward and is unable to “rule his own home” in a godly way. --- My own comments)

 

Things Hard to be Understood (Excerpts)
1Timothy 2:15

“Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.” – 1Timothy 2:15

 

WHAT 1 TIMOTHY 2:15 DOES NOT MEAN ---

 

1. It does not promise salvation of a woman’s soul through child bearing.  Therefore, if a woman is physically unable to bear children and remains barren, that does not mean she cannot be saved, for childbearing has NOTHING to do with salvation of the soul...no matter how much some people like to twist this verse and use it as a “proof text”.  Ephesians 2:8-9 teaches that salvation is a free gift, (grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone) therefore, everybody is saved the exact same way.  God is no respecter of persons. 

 

2. It does not promise escape from the pain of childbirth. Godly women usually suffer as much as others in childbearing.

 

3. It does not promise that a godly woman will never die in childbirth. Many godly women have died while bearing children.

 

WHAT 1 TIMOTHY 2:15 DOES MEAN ---

 

The Holy Spirit through Paul is saying that a woman’s main ministry and sphere of fruitfulness and reward before God is in rearing children and guiding the home. Paul is using the expression “bear children” in a wider context than we normally do today, referring to the training of the children as well as to the birthing. First, this is proven by the context of the verse (1 Timothy Chapter 2). Paul is speaking about spiritual ministry and position. Second, the pronoun changes from “she” to “they.” “They” refers to the children. Paul is saying that women can have effective ministries by rearing children in such a way that the children follow Christ and live godly lives. The verse means that a Christian woman shall be saved from unfruitfulness through child bearing, if her children continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

[HappyChristian]

, Linda

 

The woman was deceived. The man was not.

 

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

[Covenanter]

1 Tim.2:11-15
"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing"

So, DD, if Adam was NOT deceived, he sinned deliberately and in full knowledge of his sinful disobedience. The childbearing that saved the woman saves us all. See Genesis 3.

 

certainly the man has responsibility for teaching. Is Paul saying that a saved man is less likely to be led astray than a saved woman?