Give a Reason Why Paul Wrote 1 Tim. 2:8-15.

[JonC]

B

Yes, by Divine Mercy for Gentiles it requires nothing of a thrological education to see the reference to Gen. 3:16.

The issue remains to identify how this Genesis' "curse" of childbearing has relevance upon women learning in silence within a strict Patriarchal Church, and being "saved."

I am not sure how you find Paul's statements about childbearing difficult (it is not a particularly difficult passage).

Paul is offering a reason that he does not allow women to exercise authority over men in the assembly. His reason is based on the account of Eve in Genesis. Godly women being delivered through childbearing is a positive note to the curse.

The passage deals with roles in the congregation. The ultimate reason for these roles is to illustrate the love Christ had for the church. It has nothing to do with a patriarchal culture (although that was the culture), and everything to do with bearing witness of Christ.

 

[JonC]

Don't forget, now, this topic is here not because I have difficulty with it, nor do I not already see what you have graciously and expertly stated.

This topic is posted here to see if anyone can speak more than over cooked presumption upon it. Yes? No?

Remember, no current explanation of this teaching by Paul takes into account the godly Christian Women who have died in childbirth.

I think you are making an error by pulling apart the passage. The comment about childbirth was not the point of the passage. The reference to Genesis really was not the point of the passage either. The comment has to do with godly women being delivered through the curse. It is a ositive to the negative Paul just stated in giving his reason for not allowing women to exercise authority over men in the assembly.

You are "over cooking" the passage.

To put this in perspective - IF Paul were making his point about men, and pointing to Genesis for the reason, he would have said related it to having to work the land for food and one day returning to the ground.....but the godly men will be saved through labor and death. NOT that labor and death saves them, but that they are saved through labor and death. (<<< again, illustration only).

 

[Jacob59]

I am not sure how you find Paul's statements about childbearing difficult (it is not a particularly difficult passage).

Paul is offering a reason that he does not allow women to exercise authority over men in the assembly. His reason is based on the account of Eve in Genesis. Godly women being delivered through childbearing is a positive note to the curse.

The passage deals with roles in the congregation. The ultimate reason for these roles is to illustrate the love Christ had for the church. It has nothing to do with a patriarchal culture (although that was the culture), and everything to do with bearing witness of Christ.

Is there a specific relationship, beyond rote recall of preaching, between childbirth and "The love of Christ for the church," and "Bearing witness of Christ?" No, there is none to be given.

Please try to remember faithfully voicing unrelated churchy platitudes in response to a plain question is not a credible answer. There needs to be a direct relationship between an answer and the question. Okay?

 

[Yeshua1]

Please, I enjoy and approve of Paul's wisdom writings. It allows me to identify and avoid error from human folly.

I do agree about the inspiration. That is why Paul as a recipient of the inspiration so easily mixed in his own ideas.

1 Cor. 7:12, "Speak I, not the Lord.

ALL that he recorded down to us was inspired by the Holy Spirit, so when he stated that, was same as Jesus saying it to us!

 

[JonC]

Is there a specific relationship, beyond rote recall of preaching, between childbirth and "The love of Christ for the church," and "Bearing witness of Christ?" No, there is none to be given.

Please try to remember faithfully voicing unrelated churchy platitudes in response to a plain question is not a credible answer. There needs to be a direct relationship between an answer and the question. Okay?

Is there a relationship between childbirth and "the love of Christ for the Church"? Absolutely, 100%, YES. But this is not Paul's point.

I think that you are moving way past the meaning of the passage as you seem to be trying to decontextualize Paul's comments (here, his comment related to his explanation related to his actions).

If I understood your difficulty with Paul's comments then I would help you out. But I just do not see the difficulty (I do not see how you see no specific relationship between Paul's comments about childbirth and the passage as a whole or between Paul's comments and the love of Christ for the church). The issue is not at all with Paul's words, but with your understanding of his words. It is not a difficult passage.

 

[Yeshua1]

Is there a relationship between childbirth and "the love of Christ for the Church"? Absolutely, 100%, YES. But this is not Paul's point.

I think that you are moving way past the meaning of the passage as you seem to be trying to decontextualize Paul's comments (here, his comment related to his explanation related to his actions).

If I understood your difficulty with Paul's comments then I would help you out. But I just do not see the difficulty (I do not see how you see no specific relationship between Paul's comments about childbirth and the passage as a whole or between Paul's comments and the love of Christ for the church). The issue is not at all with Paul's words, but with your understanding of his words. It is not a difficult passage.

he seems to see only parts of the books paul wrote as being really inspired!

 

[JonC]

he seems to see only parts of the books paul wrote as being really inspired!

I do not know what @Jacob59 thinks of inspiration. But the issue here is context (he decontextualizes the passage, and therefore it does not make sense).

Illustration: As your employer I am not letting you drive the new Lamborghini. The reason for my decision is you were recently caught speeding. Don't worry, your job is safe as I know you paid the ticket. You are confused because you can't see how paying your ticket prohibits you from driving the Lamborghini.

The passage is more complex than that illustration, but the principle is the same. Paul tells the congregation that he does not allow women to be in authority over men in the assembly (elsewhere Paul relates these roles to the love of Christ for the church). Here Paul gives his reason based on Eve being deceived and her transgression. Then Paul says that godly women will make it through the implications of the curse.

What does godly women not being destroyed through childbirth have to do with women submitting to male leadership in the assembly? Absolutely nothing. That is not what Paul was saying at all.

 

[Jacob59]

Is there a relationship between childbirth and "the love of Christ for the Church"? Absolutely, 100%, YES. But this is not Paul's point.

I think that you are moving way past the meaning of the passage as you seem to be trying to decontextualize Paul's comments (here, his comment related to his explanation related to his actions).

If I understood your difficulty with Paul's comments then I would help you out. But I just do not see the difficulty (I do not see how you see no specific relationship between Paul's comments about childbirth and the passage as a whole or between Paul's comments and the love of Christ for the church). The issue is not at all with Paul's words, but with your understanding of his words. It is not a difficult passage.

You stated Paul's words were of no issue. Odd. You just said Paul's words were 100% from Christ. Therefore, Christ's inspired Word through Paul is of no issue to us.

Then, you err to make this thread about me personally. Lol. That is against Forum rules.

 

[JonC]

You stated Paul's words were of no issue. Odd. You just said Paul's words were 100% from Christ. Therefore, Christ's inspired Word through Paul is of no issue to us.

Then, you err to make this thread about me personally. Lol. That is against Forum rules.

Careful not to lie about people. That is against the forum rules.

 

[Jacob59]

I think you are making an error by pulling apart the passage. The comment about childbirth was not the point of the passage. The reference to Genesis really was not the point of the passage either. The comment has to do with godly women being delivered through the curse. It is a ositive to the negative Paul just stated in giving his reason for not allowing women to exercise authority over men in the assembly.

You are "over cooking" the passage.

To put this in perspective - IF Paul were making his point about men, and pointing to Genesis for the reason, he would have said related it to having to work the land for food and one day returning to the ground.....but the godly men will be saved through labor and death. NOT that labor and death saves them, but that they are saved through labor and death. (<<< again, illustration only).

Does that verbage accurately explain Paul's statement about women being saved through childbirth? Or, do you wish to merely push the inspired Scripture into obscurity and irrelevance?

That is what you are doing. Promoting the irrelevance of Scripture.

 

[Jacob59]

Careful not to lie about people. That is against the forum rules.

Stop speaking about myself, speak to the material of the Thread.

 

[Jacob59]

I do not know what @Jacob59 thinks of inspiration. But the issue here is context (he decontextualizes the passage, and therefore it does not make sense).

Illustration: As your employer I am not letting you drive the new Lamborghini. The reason for my decision is you were recently caught speeding. Don't worry, your job is safe as I know you paid the ticket. You are confused because you can't see how paying your ticket prohibits you from driving the Lamborghini.

The passage is more complex than that illustration, but the principle is the same. Paul tells the congregation that he does not allow women to be in authority over men in the assembly (elsewhere Paul relates these roles to the love of Christ for the church). Here Paul gives his reason based on Eve being deceived and her transgression. Then Paul says that godly women will make it through the implications of the curse.

What does godly women not being destroyed through childbirth have to do with women submitting to male leadership in the assembly? Absolutely nothing. That is not what Paul was saying at all.

I agree. Paul is not able to make a rational connection between to he sin of Eve, and the notion of being "saved" in childbirth.

Paul evidently was just rambling. Yes?

 

[JonC]

Stop speaking about myself, speak to the material of the Thread.

OK. Your posts in 28 and 30 are lies. As a Christian it is wrong to have made those posts as those words reflect an ungodly, sinful character and an unrepentant spirit.

Those two posts are foolish words.

 

[JonC]

I agree. Paul is not able to make a rational connection between to he sin of Eve, and the notion of being "saved" in childbirth.

Paul evidently was just rambling. Yes?

No. The post is rational. It is wrong to judge Scripture poorly simply because it escapes your grasp. The issue is not Paul.

 

[Jacob59]

OK. Your posts in 28 and 30 are lies. As a Christian it is wrong to have made those posts as those words reflect an ungodly, sinful character and an unrepentant spirit.

Those two posts are foolish words.

Nope. Those two posts are accurate.

If they were wrong, I should be forgiven rather than criticized. State how those two posts were wrong without becoming emotional and unloving.

 

[Jacob59]

No. The post is rational. It is wrong to judge Scripture poorly simply because it escapes your grasp. The issue is not Paul.

There is nothing to grasp about all women being saved through childbirth after Eve ate the forbidden fruit.

There exists no explanation or wisdom from any source, certainly not in this Forum.

Use the English language to express sentient and Godly thoughts, rather than to express personal feelings. Okay?

 

[JonC]

Stop speaking about myself,

"me"

Nope. Those two posts are accurate.

If they were wrong, I should be forgiven rather than criticized. State how those two posts were wrong without becoming emotional and unloving.

I was not talking about you personally. I was saying those two posts were stupid and anti-Christian.

I have no way of knowing how those posts reflect on you personally.

My post is not emotional or hateful towards you. I am addressing the statements in those posts, which are utter foolishness.

I cannot be loving towards you because we are just posting on a board (we are not interacting on a personal level, and love is a personal act). That said, I am not being hostile toward you, just pointing out the ignorance of those two posts.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

As the OP is now banned, this thread is closed.