Collapsing Angels and Echoes from Eden - is this good Theology?

Hello. Help me with this. Check my theology please. Even though I express myself in art, this is mostly about theology. I know this is outside of the box as far as how we usually talk about the issue of WO and gender distinctions or roles. But I think it is in the boundaries of scripture.

The art at the website is about angels falling, Eden, and how both angels and humans failed to remain in our place according to God’s holy order. Today, the colors of the rainbow are an apt symbol for this disorder. The voice of the serpent still echoes today, “did God really say…." We hear it every time someone goes against the traditional understanding of the scriptures concerning marriage and gender roles.

Collapsing Angels and Echoes from Eden

https://theserpentsaid.blogspot.com/




The idea of the woman in Eden being an anti-priest makes sense to me. And when she took and ate, and gave to her husband, and he took and ate… this looks like the anti-Eucharist, because it was the bread of death instead of life.




What say you?


Once I verify that this is sound, I plan to go more public. Everything seems to be getting deconstructed these days... and I'm also concerned that the ACNA will go the way of TEC and the C of E, and I think those that see the scriptures as promoting proper gender distinctions and not favoring WO need to be bolder about the matter, like Calvin Robinson… even if it means we risk getting bounced out or censored.

 

Your artwork is creative, expressive and inspired. Your theology however is crude and unenlightened.

The story of Adam and Eve, God and the Serpent, innocence and ignorance good and evil, obedience and sin, is a form of ancient literature known technically as Mythic Verse. Every element, every fact woven into the ancient story, was placed there by the author to make us wonder WHY it is there and WHAT it might actually tell us about human nature and the present and previous condition of the human psyche. Put simply, it explains, as an art form, what SIN is, where it comes from and how it affects us today. It is crammed full of symbolism.

This is really a summation of chapter one, (which is a different story of beginnings), rather than an introduction to chapter 2, which is itself, a different story of beginnings, and a different form of art than the one in chapter one.

In this story the earth and the heavens and man are made in a single day. In that day God caused plants and herbs to grow, watered them with a mist and made man out of dust from the ground, (to which we all return when the 'breath of God' leaves us, in death).

Here the author has introduced three important elements into the story. (1) Trees, beauty as perceived by man, and food, as provided by trees. (2) A Mythical, magical, beautiful tree which not only provides food but offers to those who eat of its fruit, eternal life. :Note, Adam, (a Hebrew word meaning mankind), in the story, has not yet eaten of this tree and is therefore still physically mortal. (3) The crucial introduction of 'The tree of the knowledge of good and evil'. This is also a Mythical, magical, beautiful tree, but IT has the power to convey knowledge. Not just 'any old knowledge' though. No! The 'Knowledge of the difference between what is GOOD and what is EVIL. Knowledge that GOD has but no human being has previously known.

The story is set in the region of Mesopotamia. The rivers Tigris (Hebrew: Hiddekel) and Euphrates are in Babylonia and Shinar, mentioned in the tower of Babel story is an early Hebrew name for Babylonia.

The human race, though named as such, i.e. Adam, is intended to manage God's garden, the earth. However something is LACKING in MAN alone. Mankind is allowed to eat of ALL trees except 'The tree that confers knowledge of the difference between GOOD and EVIL. Both of which, according to the story, already seem to exist, but MANKIND is in ignorance of it. The magical fruit of the Tree of LIFE is not yet forbidden to MANKIND but, according to the story MANKIND does not taste of it, even though it is in plain sight in the middle of the garden.

MANKIND, in the story, is the ONLY creature on earth, made by God, which does not have a partner. God has made male with female mates for every other creature except MAN. MANKIND (Adam) has given names to ALL the other creatures God has made, (and is still doing exactly that, mostly in Latin but many common names in every language too). Not one single creature on earth is therefore appropriate for sexual intercourse, at this point in the story, with MAN.

Under a general anaesthetic of 'deep sleep', God takes a SIDE of MANKIND, (the Hebrew word translated 'rib' is used to describe a 'side' of the Arc of the Covenant later on in the Bible, so is unlikely to mean just a single 'rib'. The sense is more like that which we use when referring to one's wife as 'one's other HALF'. It is metaphorical. The story therefore makes it clear to its readers that WOMAN is the only appropriate sexual partner for MAN, because SHE is his 'other half'. Together they become 'complete'. i.e. one flesh when 'joined' in a Holy relationship.

Jesus, when challenged by the Pharisees on the subject of divorce, pointed out that Mankind is made up of both male and female. Man alone is incomplete and "What God has joined together, let no man put asunder".

The story says that God told Adam "of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die". But God or Adam seems to have told Eve something different. Compare what God told Adam and what Eve THINKS God told them both.

So! Not knowing the difference between good and evil, Eve can see no reason to heed God's warning instruction. It's good for food, (God made it so), it's a delight to the eyes, (God made it so), and it would make one wise, (God surely approves of us becoming WISE rather than remaining in ignorance). Why should she not eat and share with her husband?

Now, the fun starts. The first effect knowledge of good AND evil has upon the pair is a sense of SHAME. SHAME of their natural condition as made by God.

And the fun continues, they furtively HIDE from God, (may I remind you that God is SPIRIT and those who worship God must worship him in SPIRIT and in TRUTH): They HIDE from God, they are suddenly, for the first time in their lives AFRAID and FEARFUL of God. (Just like every unconverted sinner who walks the earth today). Two grubby, shame faced, fearful, WISE? fools, fooled by a clever snake. Satan was never interested in bringing down just EVE. Satan triumphed because he ALSO brought down HUMANITY in BOTH its forms, MALE AND FEMALE, God made them. Male AND Female Satan tricked them.

A reasonable question, since while in ignorance the human race could never had known that shame existed, let alone feel it in themselves. But now they have the ability to know good from evil, they have a whole new perspective on 'life', and it's not a good feeling. (have you or I ever felt like that)?

Whoa! the FUN has really started now. MANKIND blames God for giving him a woman. Man has ALREADY just disowned his mate, partner, helper, - The WOMAN YOU gave me. Suddenly its ALL GOD'S fault. Eve gets 'scapegoated', saddled with Adams guilt, and God gets the BLAME for it all from ADAM. (That is what YOU are doing to women today, and worse still your misogyny is excused by saying that GOD EXPECTS it of you. THIS is where your theology is screwed mate!).

Which, we should admit is ACTUALLY the truth of the matter. Eve has learned MORE about good AND evil, and has decided to tell the truth to God rather than accusing God of causing trouble, like Adam did.

Which is why snakes in the grass always bite you in the legs.

Which is a state of affairs brought about by listening to a talking snake and believing any old thing anyone says to you, (Like vote for Trump - to MAGA - for instance).

So! foolishness stuffed Adam, (The Human Race, MANKIND), and foolishness, thinking oneself to be WISE, still stuffs the human race.

Previous to this, animals didn't have to die so MAN and WOMAN could get a new fur coat. I don't think the story teller intended us to think God invented 100% Faux Fur. God (The Spirit), must have skinned a couple of furry critters for that naked pair of fools. Now look what we've made God do, with our foolisness, to His creation

So! God couldn't risk letting MANKIND (i.e. Adam and Eve), carry on living in a 'Garden' of delight, at ease, with the prospect of stumbling across the Tree of LIFE, and so be condemned eternally to live in mankind's UNREGENERATE, WISE-foolishness, alienated from God and fearful of everything he remains in ignorance of (especially of GOD), whom mankind remained astonishingly ignorant of, until Jesus of Nazareth told us the truth about him and showed us what God is really like.

Fortunately the last Book in the Bible tells us HOW we can yet eat of the fruit of the Tree of LIFE and obtain healing from its leaves. Test your grasp on theology and go look it up.

I hope you have enjoyed reading this as much as I enjoyed writing it. Welcome to Anglican Forums.

 

It seems all right to me, although the strident tone will be off-putting for many of those whom you hope to reach.

By the way, Tiffy is married to a Church of England (retired) female priest, so his response may be a helpful gauge for you to predict how your message is likely to be received by the intended audience.

 

Thank you. I appreciate your thoughtful responses. I hope to get a little more feedback from you, please.

Maybe your theology is short-sighted and mundane. I think this relates to how we view the Bible, as you express below.

Yes, it is crammed with symbolism, though you are only looking at surface things. We have different views on the Bible, and maybe that is why your explanations seem a little shallow and basic. If indeed our God is the creator of the universe, and he chose to reveal himself through the writings of selected people, then the Bible is far more than a form of ancient literature, or art form. It is more mystical than mythical. But maybe I have been listening to Jonathan Pageau a little too much.

This is good. However, to be fair, we must point out that Christ acknowledges the eunuch right after this. And Christ does not imply they are "incomplete".

I think we both know that the scriptures place the blame on Adam, not the woman. The scriptures say that she was deceived. But the fault fell on Adam because he was the "worker and keeper" of the garden - it was his responsibility, per God's call. The woman usurped his authority when she engaged with the serpent. I do not mean that she took authority by force, but rather that it was unlawful, or out of order, for her to be in authority. But she could not know this, and so we understand that she was deceived. However, Adam knew what his call from God was yet he failed to step forward when the serpent came. He was effeminate. I do not mean he dressed like a girl, for they were naked. But in terms of role, he did not "keep and work" and instead was impotent.

That's a bit of a stretch. Maybe you are just having a little fun. Blames God. Disowned his helper. I don't see that.

Please explain this one. Misogyny. Please tell me what I wrote to make you think this. I certainly would want to make some adjustments.

In fact, I blame the man. I blame the man because scripture blames the man. Additionally, I do not think I have expressed contempt for women. In fact, the way I understand the scriptures, women are more valuable. Sure, both men and women have eternal value to God. But, on this earth, here and now, men are more dispensable. A man is called to love and die for his wife, as Christ loved and died for the church. Therefore, on earth the woman is the more valued vessel. This is why I open the door for my wife. Christ opens the door into paradise for his Bride... so I emulate it, in my meager manner. There is much more I could write about this.

I don't see this at all. I do not see that Adam blamed God. Additionally, woman (she has not been named Eve yet) blamed the snake.

Thank you. Yes, I did enjoy reading it. I appreciate it.


Finally, rather than give your watered down summary of what happened in Eden, please give me some feedback on some of the things I point to about these scriptures. What about the idea of the woman in the garden being an anti-priest? Yes, I know that the idea of the woman being an anti-priest might be off putting to some, especially someone from the C of E, TEC, or an ACNA diocese that practices WO, where there are women priests. But please, step outside of the woke western matrix and look at this without letting feelings and western biases get in the way. Scripture indeed teaches us that Christ is our high priest, Christ is the better Adam. Adam was to be priest, but he failed to stand against the serpent. That is what priests do - they stand against the serpent (and now with Christ). Woman in the garden did not stand against the serpent but followed the serpent and was deceived. It is fair to see this as being in the role of anti-priest. That does not make her public enemy number one. It was the man that failed.

And what about the gender confusion in the church, and how the ultimate expression of this is seen in our failure to follow the scriptures when calling priests and deacons? The church since the 1960's has participated in gender bending, and set aside scriptures about gender and authority in the process. And now, because the church fails to hold up the standards of who male and female are according to God's word, the world has fallen into identify confusion and disorder. This is the fault of the church. Our disobedience landed us here. We are the whore riding on the beast, pouring out abominations - since you bring up Revelation.

 

Strident. Yes. I know. But the debate that has been going on for 50 years... it's not mattering. Maybe it's time to be like John the Baptist. He called out sin where it was, in its face, even to the king. Sure, it cost him his head. Just like they cut off Calvin Robinson's head in Mere Anglicanism, metaphorically. Yet, should we bend like a reed in the wind? Maybe that is the problem. We are being passive, like Adam. Rather, we should confront the voice of the serpent that casts doubts on God's word. Certainly John the Baptist was strident. Listen. Is what I write really strident? Is it? Or, is it more our context. Here in the West, we have a worldly programming, and we have very thin skin. I think it is more that. Strident. Have you read Martin Luther? LOL.

Thank you for your feedback. And I understand where Tiffy is coming from. He should stand with his wife over me, for sure. I hope he continues to participate.

 

Mythic technically in theological terminology means: 'having hidden profound symbolic and metaphorical meaning, not immediately obvious in any merely literal reading of the text'. Legendary might be a better synonym. The term 'fabulous' has so changed its meaning recently that it is inappropriate here, but the old fashioned definition of 'fable', meaning a story with a deeper meaning, might be helpful. One thing is certain though, its not history in the sense that we think of as 'history'. No one was there to record the facts. It is ALL inspired by God through the mind of the human being that devised the story and wrote it down.

Without the female 'side' of humanity, humanity is only HALF of humanity. HALF of humanity would be missing. God made humanity male AND female. In the flesh, without the female, man cannot continue to exist. Christ DOES imply the eunuch has something missing. That something missing is said by him to be 'for the sake of the kingdom', and not all are able to receive what he said.

I think you have added rather a lot to the scriptures there friend.. 1 Tim.2:8-15 'Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor'. 'For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive'. 1 Cor.15:22-23,

None of that appears anywhere in the text of Gen. chapter 2. You just made it all up.

What I wrote is absolutely correct, according to the text of the scripture. I have not 'made it up'. God said to Adam, (i.e. mankind), “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?” The man said, “The woman whom THOU gavest to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate.” Adam blames God for giving him Eve to 'be with him', he disowns his own wife and claims SHE made him disobey God's warning rather than take full responsibility. He's not 'effeminate', he's a yellow-bellied coward, a disloyal turncoat and a truth dodging, God blaming, misogynist.

As I pointed out scripture actually contains evidence that the writer of the first letter to Timothy quite clearly thought that Eve was to blame, and so do many other 'Christians', because, they say, she was 'deceived' but Adam wasn't. But even the writer is wrong about that because clearly they were BOTH deceived because they BOTH knowingly ATE the magic fruit, against God's good advice.

Eve spoke the truth when she said she had been 'beguiled' by the snake. That is actually what happened, according to the text of the story. Beguile means : to charm, to cheat or to deceive, to trick into some course of action. Her accusation against Satan was fully justified. God confirmed this by accusing Satan himself, on Eve's behalf. The LORD God said to the serpent,
“Because you have done this, . . . . etc. Everything God says is true, so God obviously accepted Eve's excuse, but NOT Adam's, because Adam had lied, because He had said. “The woman whom thou (GOD) gave to be with me, SHE gave me fruit of the tree, and I (just) ate.”
Let me point out the fact that this trait of blaming authority for ones own failings and denying relationship with those we blame, (like in misogyny or scapegoating), becomes common in men who are subject to the sin of envy. In Luke 15:29-30 we find this little gem. But he answered his father, ‘Lo, these many years I have served you, and I never disobeyed your command; yet you never gave me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends. But when this son of yours came, who has devoured your living with harlots, you killed for him the fatted calf!’
Notice the way the elder brother disowns his brother, AND his own Father, (actually GOD, in the meaning of the parable). He is no longer 'my brother', he has become YOUR SON. All relationship broken off. All through slavishly 'time serving', legalistic, loveless rule keeping, religiosity, spurning the Father's GRACE.

THAT is what mankind has done to God, and it was entirely left to GOD to restore the relationship. 2 Cor.5:19. We can be reconciled to God now, because of what God in Christ has done for us all.

The first mention of a priest in connection with the people of God, in the Bible is Gen.14:18-20.
'And Melchiz′edek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was priest of God Most High. And he blessed him and said,
“Blessed be Abram by God Most High,
maker of heaven and earth;
and blessed be God Most High,
who has delivered your enemies into your hand!”
And Abram gave him a tenth of everything.

Adam had no need of a priest, in the story, Adam walked in the garden himself with God and presumably so did Eve. I see no valid reason to consider Eve to be anti-Christ. Christ is our great High Priest after the order of Melchiz′edek Heb.6:20. This New Covenant order of the priesthood of Melchiz′edek, includes both men AND women, in fact includes ALL believers in the universal atonement of humanity by God in Jesus Christ. 1 Pet.2:5-9.

Gender confusion has always existed in the church. It is part and parcel of the fallen condition of mankind generally. However as a problem preventing our entrance into 'The Kingdom' Jesus Christ is surprisingly silent in all four Gospels and Revelation regarding gender confusion. I can only conclude that HE didn't consider it important enough to give guidance to us his future disciples on the issue, as he did on greed, hypocrisy, revenge, being judgmental of others, trusting in wealth and success to gain approbation from God, showing off our piety and our supposed or feigned ability to 'live according to the law, a righteous life' etc. etc. etc. In fact a whole host of warnings about all sorts of ways we can end up on the road to perdition, but not a single word about 'gender confusion' or even 'role displacement'. Luke 10:38-42. Mary was discipling, learning to be a believer and therefore a priest in the order of Melchiz′edek.

 

Hold up now. I did not write that. Let's keep things honest here.





Previously, you referred to my art and writing as misogyny. I asked how. You never answered. Now, you write something incendiary, as if I made that claim . Don’t play dirty. Concerning misogyny, you wrote this below.

I asked you to tell me where. You never did.



So, let’s do this. Maybe we are juggling too many balls. You obviously don’t do that very well. Let’s reduce our responses or points to fewer things.

You said the writer was wrong. This makes discussion with you about the Bible difficult, really. Because you think the writer of the Bible can be wrong.

That aside, there is so much you write that is wrong and needs to be corrected. But like I said, it is too many balls, or topics, to juggle. I will just pick a few.

It’s there. Let me show you. In Gen. 2:15 we see that God put the man in Eden to keep and work it. All translations say this. Even the Hebrew says it. Clearly we see it was the man’s responsibility, his call. And when the serpent came, the man did not obey his call. Adam was not deceived. Adam knew his call. Adam knew God said to not eat it. Even so, he did nothing, and the woman stepped forward, and she was deceived. It is clearly in the narrative. I did not make up as you claim.

No. Adam is blaming the woman. You are confused here.. Even your supporting examples are off. But I will try to focus on the most relevant things.

No. You are missing the point. Adam did not need a priest. He was the priest. Eden was where heaven and earth met. Adam was mediator between God and the earth. Adam named the animals for God. Man and woman were called to be fruitful and multiply. They were to take dominion over the earth, and even the sea. That is to say, they were to spread Eden over the whole earth. So, the garden that God planted, Adam and his helper were to expand over the earth. This was a holy call.

You are way off here. More so than usual. I can only conclude that you are reading the Bible through the lens that western men must wear. Most men in the west have been put in a mental box and told to not come out. Get out of the box, Tiffy. Seriously.

Christ said plenty about gender and role. The most important is Matthew 19:4-12 (and Mark 10), where Christ reaches with his words all the way back to when man and woman were created. Do you not know what his words mean? Male. Female. Husband. Wife. Leave father and mother. One flesh. That is OVERFLOWING with gender and gender roles. For heaven’s sake, man, can you not see that? And then as icing on the cake, Christ said, what God has put together let no one rend asunder. Yet, today, we are rending asunder marriage , sexuality, gender, male , female… tearing them apart like demons!

 

I actually wrote: Your artwork is creative, expressive and inspired.

True, those were not the exact words that you wrote, but your inference was that Eve OPPOSED Christ by being a proto anti-priest in the Garden of Eden. A forerunner of female priests, who you seem to consider to be in some way opposing Christ's order in His church. This is the root of misogyny. (Gr mis-o a hater of, Gr gyne woman). The original scapegoating upon the helper God created, in order to relieve the guilt of THE MAN, not admitting to being a transgressor against God, guilty by fully participating in the self same contempt of God's advice to not eat of it, yet placing the blame for his predicament upon the woman, (and also upon God, for even her very existence, to be ABLE to cause MAN to sin).

Christ is our Great High Priest. Who calls to ALL both male and female to worship God in Spirit and in Truth. John 4:23. We are to learn from him Matt.11:29, Luke 10:38-42

It is not enough to just receive Jesus into your house. The ONE needful thing is to LEARN FROM HIM. Luke 12:42. Our 'food' is Christ's teaching, Christ's teaching to his disciple is HIMSELF, HE is the word. HE is the portion. Those who have HIM, (by metaphorically sitting at his feet and listened to his teaching, and THEN LIVING THAT WAY), are members of a Holy Priesthood, and HE is their High Priest. (whether, like Mary, they are female or male, it is by eating that 'portion', that Christ gave for the ransom of the world, his words, his teaching, his dead body on a cross, the VERY life he lived, sacrificially, that makes us wise and faithful stewards, a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people 1 Pet. 2:9.

Eve could not be a priest or even an anti-priest, after the Serpent incident, she and Adam BOTH had not listened to THE LORD'S teaching. Their neglect of the one needful thing, was what got them and the whole human race into trouble. Adam was every bit as guilty as EVE, for not listening at God's feet, not following God's advice, not worshipping in spirit and in truth.

I have been, but you have not noticed. Like Martha biblical fundamentalists are distracted by too many other things, such as male supremacy, patriarchalism, legalistic rule keeping to get and keep salvation. Like the Pharisees, they think they know the rules and are intent on others keeping them. They know exactly what God demands of man and woman and read the scriptures through the filter of what they are convinced they already know. And every word they read in the scriptures was written by God, so it must be true.

If you examine the text closely enough, without preconceptions as to its stated claims, the person who wrote it IS wrong in asserting that unlike St Paul who wrote correctly at 2 Cor. 11:3 'I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ'. This is indeed true, Eve admitted it truthfully to God, and God backed up the truth of her confession by condemning the serpent for doing what Eve had accused it of.

The person who wrote 1 Timothy however is mistaken when at 1 Tim. 2:14, he wrote 'and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet woman will be saved through bearing children,

He's not just wrong about one thing, he's wrong about three things in the space of just two sentences.

First Adam was deceived. Although, in the story, the conversation was entirely between the serpent and Eve, the story does not say Adam was not present during the conversation, in fact it hints that he was, and therefore was also beguiled into accepting Eve's offering of the magic fruit. He certainly ate it, accordingly, when offered some by Eve. Even if Adam did not know that it was the forbidden fruit he was being offered, he still had been fooled into accepting it, so he WAS deceived. If Adam had not been deceived, as the writer claims, then Adam would not have eaten the fruit, but clearly he had been deceived into eating it, just the same as Eve was deceived and ate it.
Second the writer of 1 Tim. 2:14-15, implies that though Eve transgressed, Adam did not. But both ate the fruit, therefore both transgressed.

Thirdly the notion that women are 'saved' through childbirth is nonsense. What about barren women? are they not 'saved'? Is salvation obtained differently by woman than by man? Is it not through faith in the Son of God, Jesus Christ, and his atoning sacrifice ALONE that we human beings are 'saved'?

Is whoever wrote Ephesians chapter 2, verses 5 to 10 uninspired or wrong in telling the Ephesian church this:
'even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with him, and made us sit with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God— not because of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.'

The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it.

work h5647. עָבַד ‘âḇaḏ; (a primitive root); to work (in any sense); by implication, to serve, till, (causatively) enslave, etc.: — x be, keep in bondage, be bondmen, bond-service, compel, do, dress, ear, execute, + husbandman, keep, labour(-ing man, bring to pass, (cause to, make to) serve(-ing, self), (be, become) servant(-s), do (use) service, till(-er), transgress (from margin), (set a) work, be wrought, worshipper,
AV (290) - serve 227, do 15, till 9, servant 5, work 5, worshippers 5, service 4, dress 2, labour 2,

keep h8104. שָׁמַר šâmar; (a primitive root); properly, to hedge about (as with thorns), i.e. guard; generally, to protect, attend to, etc.: — beward, be circumspect, take heed (to self), keep(-er, self), mark, look narrowly, observe, preserve, regard, reserve, save (self), sure, (that lay) wait (for), watch(-man).
AV (468) - keep 283, observe 46, heed 35, keeper 28, preserve 21, beware 9, mark 8, watchman 8, wait 7, watch 7, regard 5, save 2, misc 9;

Man was, according to the story, God's workman, not anyone's 'boss'. He was employed, not an employer. He was responsible for no one but himself and responsible only to God. He was lacking a suitable partner. When God said “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” God intended to provide a 'helper', not an employee, but a business partner, not a servant, but an equal, not a subject but a regent. Gen.2:23-25. The woman was even recognised as suitable by Adam because (1) She was provided from Adam himself by God. (2) She became one flesh with him, making Adam complete again. There is nothing in the text indicating that Eve 'stepped forward'. Gen. 3:4, only that the serpent spoke to her first and said: “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?” In Hebrew 'you' is plural in verses 1-5. In effect "Did God say You two shall both not eat . . ." So it looks like Satan was talking to both Eve and Adam, but Adam took no part in the conversation. He let Eve do all the talking, and make all the decisions. That made him culpable for all the consequences following from his reticence. He failed Eve. He failed himself and he failed God. Those were not good leadership qualifications.

Christ, the Second Adam, took responsibility for the sins of the whole human race, overcame the sharpness of death and so overcame the World, Jn.16:33, and God was well pleased in Him. Matt.17:5. He did not try to blame anyone else for his predicament, like Adam did. He even forgave the human race which got him crucified by their sins. He entrusted the women with the greatest news mankind has ever received, Matt.28:10, but the men were unbelieving. Mark 16:13.

I'm not the one confused. That's what the story says. The WOMAN whom you (GOD), gave to be with me, Not my beloved wife, not flesh of my flesh, not my companion, not even just 'that woman' - BUT - "THE WOMAN YOU gave to BE with me". As if God is at fault for Eve's being WITH Adam at all. Gen.3:12. Adam is even criticising God's decision when "The LORD God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” Adam is really in a filthy temper with Both Eve and God, because Adam has been caught red handed transgressing. (Exactly the reaction of every criminal when arrested, caught in the act). Blame everyone else.

As I said, and once again it is not I who am confused, 'Adam had no need of a priest, in the story, Adam walked in the garden himself with God and presumably so did Eve'.

If Adam WAS a priest, as you claim, then so was Eve. She was flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone and his partner of one flesh, which no man should divide. Adam had no need at all of any intermediary, and neither did Eve, before the serpent incident. After the incident they were not qualified for priesthood. They had rejected the advice of their High Priest. They had neglected the 'one thing necessary'.

Better that 'box', than being locked in an echo chamber, 'male supremacy, Pharisaical, bronze age, patriarchal, legalistic rule based society, box', like the Jews had in Jesus' time. You don't seem to appreciate the good effects brought about by nearly 2000 years of Christianity.

Not gender roles it's not. I've quoted that saying of our Lord quite a few times in these recent posts. In support of the equality that Christ assumed existed between husband and wife. The Pharisees were wanting Jesus to support their contention that husbands can dump their wives willy nilly as often as they like, without so much as a thought for them, as being of no account and dispensable. Christ disagreed with them and told them so. By the way, the text of what Jesus said is not in support of the historical existence of Adam as a factual historical man, per se. It was in support of the fact that marriage was constituted by God from the very beginning, and only much later did Moses allow divorce, 'because of their hardness of heart'. So divorcing one's wife, for any other reason than HER adultery is evidence of lacking of love and hardness of heart in the husband. In fact the likelihood would have been, in those days, that the reason SHE committed adultery was precisely because of her husband's hardness of heart. That is the crime, not the divorcing, or the adultery per se, but the hardness of heart in the husband. Acts 28:17-29. It was 'hardness and dullness of heart', that rejected The Christ.

Would you have a wife remain in her drunken, drug crazed, violent, abusive, heathen husband's house, or separate them by sending him to jail where he rightly belongs, or even granting her, her freedom by dissolving the marriage for her altogether? If you were a magistrate what would you do?

There used to be no divorce allowed at all in Roman Catholic Ireland. They had to resort to undetectable poisons or carefully arranged 'accidents'. Nowadays the divorce rate's gone up substantially, but the unexplained deaths have reduced considerably. Things might not be as much worse than they used to be, as you may be imagining.

 

The woman was anti-priest (not anti-christ). Rather than being mediator between God and earth, she was deceived and was mediator between the serpent and earth.

Christ was not born yet. Yes, I know… in the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God, and the word was made FLESH. But not yet.

Yes, a woman being priest opposes God's order. This was understand until after the 1960's. That is when women started being priests and stopped covering their heads in church. Now, there is gender bending in the church.

You keep writing stuff like that. It’s like you are stuck on a merry go round.

Yes, some people do that. But that has nothing to do with me.

Paul wrote it. And you are unabashedly calling him wrong, AGAIN.

No, he was not. The Bible teaches that he was not. Again, you are disagreeing with what the Bible actually teaches.

Woman was deceived. She should have remained in her helper position but rather became keeper of the garden and faced the serpent, and she became anti-priest when she mediated between serpent and earth.. She took the bread of death, ate, and gave to Adam and he ate. The anti-Eucharist.

You are right.

You spend a lot words bashing men. Western programming. Stop using the word “woman” like it is a dirty word. That is shameful to do that. It is not. I know the world has made it so. But it is an honorable word or name. Adam called her “woman” BEFORE the fall. It is a good name. Jesus called his mother “woman”. He called the woman at the well “woman”. There is nothing bad about that word… unless you think Jesus is also a sinner.

The world is an echo chamber. For Satan. And that echo even sounds in the church when we disobey God's word, like we did in Eden. We show that we love ourselves more than God when we do not obey his commands. He is Father , Son, and Holy Spirit... and his commands are in the Old Testament, the Gospels, and even the ones in the letters that you think are wrong.

I appreciate the good effects of Christianity. Unfortunately, our countries are rejecting it... and prefers the new woke religion.

Husband and wife are one. Both equally have eternal value… but not equal roles here on earth. Christ himself shows us this when he asks the woman at the well, “Go, call your husband, and come here”. Now, some may say that Christ was merely following the ill conventions of the patriarchal system when he wanted to speak with her husband, or head. But that would be counting Christ among sinners.

 

Better minds than yours or mine have examined this verse and have seen ways in which it could be understood in harmony with the rest of Scripture. The key here, I think, is for the Christian to be willing to humbly say, "I'm not sure I understand this verse, but surely God's word is true, so the shortfall lies with my intellect and not with Scripture."

Stating without equivocation that Scripture contains a mistake is, to my mind, an untenable and prideful position which supposes that one knows better than the Holy Scriptures. I fear that you may have violated one of the terms of service here, although I sincerely hope not.

 

Please note that I am NOT questioning the inspiration of Holy scripture. I'm questioning the logic of the person who wrote 1 Tim. 2:14. It only seems that way to you because the way you interpret what you read in scripture is to take every word and sentence written by the person who wrote it as a direct statement from God himself. (Which of course must therefore be absolute TRUTH). The way I understand scripture to be inspired by God is not like that. What we read in scripture can be the personal opinions sometimes of the person who wrote it, and THEY can sometimes be wrong in their assumptions or in what they've been led to believe. to know whether they might be it is necessary to compare what they might have wriitten with what OTHER people who wrote scripture have written which might seem to contradict what the other writer had asserted. In the case of 1 Tim. 2:14, the writer contradicts much of what the Apostle Paul writes in many other places in holy scripture concerning HOW we human beings, male and female, are 'saved'. He also logically contradicts himself in the way he trys to imply that Adam was not a transgressor, when we ALL know from the scripture that Adam DID transgress. Otherwise how did Adam KNOW he was naked? God caught him IN his transgression. It's as plain as the nose on one's face, the writer is wrong. Adam DID transgress and was obviously mislead into eating the magic fruit just like Eve had been, no difference.

It's no good starting from the assumption that every word written in scripture by every writer of scripture is absolute truth as if spoken by God. That is not how Biblical inspiration works. God did not take writers over and dictate to them through automatic writing like in some seance so that every word they wrote was literally absolutely TRUE. If you do that you end up, in some cases doing exactly what Eve did, getting beguiled and believing the serpent, because even HE speaks out of the words written by some people who wrote holy scripture. Matt. 4:1-11 has quite a few statements that are clearly not GOD's words but are nontheless the word of God. Another example is Paul offering his personal opinion in scripture and admitting it's his opinion, as such, to differentiate between an Apostolically Authoritative statement inspired by God, and a personal opinion, or statement of someone else, inspired as being truthfully reported, by God, but perhaps only common hearsay. As in the case of the pecular two different deaths of Judas in Acts 1:15-20 and Matt.27:3-10. Not EVERYTHING you may read in scripture is TRUE in the way we usually regard TRUTH. It may be true that there were many rumours going round Jerusalem concerning how Judas had died, but not all of those rumours were actually TRUE, and the one Peter quoted in Acts, might have been one that wasn't.
.

 

You are aware I suppose that God is The Trinity. The Trinity has existed from before the foundation of the earth. The Trinity didn't wait to come into existence until the incarnation you know. Therefore Christ, as the 2nd person of the Trinity, was OPPOSED by Eve and Adam in their TRANSGRESSION. They both disregarded to advice of The LORD, God. So they also opposed, i.e. were anti The Father and The Holy Spirit because they are also indevisably - GOD, who said "Who told you that you were naked, have you eaten of the fruit I told you not to"? And the LORD said that to Adam, not Eve. So Adam transgressed and was caught red handed by The LORD - (Christ, The Father and The Holy Spirit). Or am I debating with a Unitarian?

The LORD whose advice both Adam and Eve decided to disregard was the same LORD that Martha complained to that Mary wasn't performing her ROLE properly but discovered it was her own perceived ROLE that was called into question by the LORD. "“Martha, Martha, you are worried and distracted by many things; there is need of only one thing. Mary has chosen the better part, which will not be taken away from her.” Mary's necessary part was to LISTEN at the LORD's feet. Exactly what Adam and Eve had NOT done and incidentally exactly what Martha was NOT doing. And judging from the way scripture is being interpreted in your posts, Martha isn't the only one confused about the 'one thing' she was really in need of doing, and it wasn't pleasing the MEN in her life by keeping in the place THEY said she should remain in. Next time you send your wife off to her place to rattle the pots and pans in the kitchen, remember what the LORD said to Martha.
.

 

It seems that you prefer to think Paul wrote something illogical, as opposed to admitting that you might perhaps be misunderstanding what Paul meant (given the difficulty of translating from one language to another and the possible use of idioms with which we are unfamiliar today, among other things). This is eisegesis.

The Greek Bible scholar and native Greek speaker, Spiros Zodhiates, wrote about this difficult passage, 1 Timothy 2:9-15. He makes some interesting points.

First, he states that the Greek word sōphrosunē, which the KJV translates as "sobriety" in verses 9 and 15, has "absolutely no English equivalent...To make its meaning simple we should say that it is the voluntary limitation of one's freedom of thought and behavior. The closest in English would be sober mindedness. The truth of the matter is that in Christianity women became free, equal to their husbands. The danger, however, was always present that they might misuse this new-found freedom and take it beyond the limitations that God had placed in appolinting man as head over woman in the marital relationship...The whole thesis of the Apostle Paul is that women should not try to look or act like men and should not attempt to usurp the position of their husbands in the home and in the church, thus maintaining the parallel of the Church as the bride of Christ. This in now way implied that men are superior to women, but to function properly, everything needs a head, including a family..."

Second, he says that the word gunē is translated as woman or as wife depending on the context, and that the context in this passage from v. 11 onward calls for it to properly be translated "wife." The word anēr (v. 12) based on context should be translated "husband" rather than the generic "man."

Third, the word translated "silence" is hēsuchia, and he calls this translation "unfortunate" because it should in this instance carry a connotation of peaceableness, tranquility, not disturbed. Thus verse 11 would read, "Let the wife learn (continually) in tranquility in her positioning under."

"What did Paul want to teach in 1 Tim. 2:11?" Zodhiates wrote. "It was that a wife should display a tranquil spirit in her attempt to learn."

"Verse 12 is again poorly translated in the KJV...Paul says, I do not permit a wife to teach...continuously...If she did, she would undermine her husband's position, giving the impression that she is the head of her husband, which is contrary to God's ordained order between husband and wife."

In regard to verse 15, Zodhiates says, "Paul argues in vv. 14,15 that it was the woman who was deceived by Satan, but that in childbearing she has regained her position before God in equality with man. However, she must beware lest she misuse that freedom granted to her by God." The Greek sōphrosunē is once again used, with the meaning of the wife's voluntary limitation of her freedom of thought and behavior.

Based on this, I would like to suggest that the use of the word sōzō in this context does not mean eternal-life salvation (which is by grace through faith) but rather a more temporal salvation: the wife is saved from making a fool of herself -- saved from disgracing her husband and herself by her behavior -- if she voluntarily submits to the "childbearing" role of a wife and does not presume to usurp the husband's place in the relationship.

As for verse 14, other commentators have suggested that while Eve was 'taken in' and 'fooled' by the serpent's spiel, Adam didn't buy the lie but he still went along with his wife out of other motives, such as a desire to please her, a desire to maintain harmony in the relationship, etc. In this way Adam certainly transgressed, but he still can be said to have not been deceived by the enemy, at least not directly.

This method of hermeutics is greatly preferable to one in which the reader is willing to assume that the writers "contradict themselves." Christians should believe that the ultimate author of the Bible's books is God the Holy Spirit, and it is reasonable to believe that the Holy Spirit is consistent, he does not contradict Himself, and He is very well capable of preventing actual contradictions (even though our lesser intellects may sometimes perceive what appear to us to be potential contradictions).

 

Addendum: in his notes on Titus 2:1-5, Zodhiates calls to the reader's attention the fact that Paul (a bachelor) wrote to Titus (another bachelor) and advised him to have the older women teach the younger women. From this it becomes a bit more apparent why 1 Tim. 2:12 was not as well translated in the KJV as it could have been. For if all women were to maintain absolute silence in the church, how could the older women be teachers of the younger ones?

 

That's what scripture relates. You can't deny the truth but then again perhaps you do.

I am quite possibly not calling Paul wrong. I am calling the writer of 1 Tim. 2:14-15 mistaken, and possibly accusing him, (for it was certainly a man), of contradicting St.Paul regarding everything Paul said concerning where women and men get their salvation from and how they get it. Would you like me to quote all of Paul's actual statements in scripture, regarding how both men and women both are 'saved'? It isn't through childbirth, not a single one of them, I can assure you of that. Neither does Paul anywhere say that Adam did not sin or did not become a transgressor. In FACT Paul says THIS: "Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned— sin indeed was in the world before the law was given." The MAN Paul was referring to was undoubtedly Adam. The very Adam that the writer of 1 Tim. 2:14-15 says "was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.

If Adam was not deceived, and didn't become a transgressor but the woman was and did, then how was it that Adam knew he was naked, and God called him out for transgressing.

Now either Paul contradicted himself or Paul didn't write it. I personally go for the 'Paul didn't write it' option as being more likely than Paul contradicted himself. Paul was too inspired a writer to have contradicted his own previous many logical statements in his letters, even to different people.

If you want to learn more about why the pastoral epistles pose a problem, some explanations for it can be found here.

This problem is only a problem for Plenary Verbal Inspirationists, because they are, and continue to be, Plenary verbal Inspirationists.
.

 

Our good friend Occam perhaps would get his razor out and declare: "wouldn't it be a whole lot simpler to conclude that the writer of the Pastorals, whoever he might have been, was much less gifted in the intellect department than was St Paul. That sort of thing shows in any writers work, whether a Biblical one or not.

Of course if we are going to insist everything in the Bible was written by God the Holy Spirit, it becomes impossible to contemplate that it could have been written by a pseudepigrapher, (they did exist), and yet still be inspired or validly endorsed even by God. It is a Plenary-verbal-Inspiration mindset that causes such contradictions and errors in logic in the text, to be desperately explained away, so that the text can continue to be considered 'Authoritative'.

The reason it must be considered 'Authoritative' is a desperate need for it to be pedantically prescriptive and legalistically controlling, or rather, divine directives of The Holy Spirit to guide future generations of the church into all truth, rather than expressions of the social mores, customs and manners of the author's own era.
.

 

Um... maybe they did it outside the church building.

 

It does not say what you claim. You are adding words to it. YOU wrote: "If Adam was not deceived, and didn't become a transgressor...." You added that thought. Paul was not wrong to write what he wrote. You might disagree with Paul. That's your right, I guess.

Paul wrote about women being silent TWICE.

1.) 1 Corinthians 14:31-38 . Here, Paul taught, "As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches."
2.) 1 Timothy 2:11–15 . Here, Paul taught, "Let a woman learn quietly."

ALSO, even Peter teaches it, for a THIRD teaching.

3.) 1 Peter 3: 1-6. Peter taught, "but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit

This is what God's word teaches. HOWEVER, this is very , very important and you can't miss it.

4.) 1 Corinthians 11:1-16. Here Paul teaches that a woman or wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head.

#1 relates to a woman not judging prophecy in the church.
#2 teaches that a woman should not teach in the church.
#3 teaches the right disposition of a woman, anywhere.
#4 teaches that a woman can pray (speak to God) and prophesy (speak for God) if her head is covered.

So a woman CAN speak in church. She can read the Bible and liturgy and pray in the service... but she should veil. There is massive theology in this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqmV8UNYbB8

You have to read scripture holistically. That's hard to do when you think the Bible is corrupt or wrong, all while disjointing things, like westerners tend to do, even here. You see, when westerners took head coverings out of church... it resulted in people thinking women had to be silent, because a vital part of Paul's teaching was missing. They don't have to be silent in church, except in certain situations related to teaching and authority. Women can NOT judge prophecy in church nor teach men. That is out of order, just like when Woman in the garden judged the serpent's prophesy wrongly and then errantly taught her husband to do likewise.

The Bible teaches that the man is the head of the household and church. This is a hard thing, because men are called to love their wives more than their own life. With God's help, I love my wife that much. Brothers and sisters, we need to be careful, because if we disobey God concerning gender roles... we could end up with major gender confusion and even same sex attraction, and maybe even crazy things like a woman in reverse drag in the place of a priest, wearing "that which pertaineth unto a man". (Duet. 22:5)

 

A 'gospel' of the fundamentalist 'Christian' Taliban. Full of irrational fear, repression and bigotry. A vexation of the spirit of Jesus Christ.

As if a woman "declaring the wonderful deeds of Jesus Christ who called us ALL out of darkness into his marvelous light." is some kind of affrontery to decent order and righteous behaviour. THAT is the proper role of a 'Christian' priest, of the New Testament, according to the Apostle Peter. And it does not exclude women.

This addiction to control and restriction of the femenine half of humanity in Christ's church, is misogynistic thinking of the highest satanic order. Attempting to silence women preaching the Gospel of the wonderful deeds of Jesus Christ, in their priestly capacity, on Apostolic authority is positively anti-Christ's teaching. Truly 'Talibanic' and Pharisaical in its lust for restrictive control and clutching after feigned gender superiority.
.

 

Now, instead of us getting on our high hobby horses and promoting or defending our respective gender 'causes' in this thread, let's get back to discussion of what the ancient story of Adam and Eve actually tells us about human gender relationships and how they started going wrong, and WHY. We might even get as far as discovering how the teachings, behaviour and lifestyle of Our LORD Jesus Christ has started the process of re-uniting that which has been 'put asunder' in the field of human gender relationships within his redeemed, regenerate people, the church. Like the chosen people, the 'family' of Abraham, the church is intended by God to present an example to the, as yet, uninitiated, uneducated, unrepentant and unregenerate of mankind.
.