Hey Paul, God Didn’t Say That!
Paul said in I Timothy 2:11-2:15:
“Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor 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 transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.”
But it seems God had other ideas.
Genesis 3:13 - “And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me and I did eat.“ This is a confession of the female ironically stating (given the “accusation” of Paul) that she was indeed “beguiled” or tricked, even deceived. She willingly spoke her truth before God. As such, this was a fallen but proven righteous female who a traditionally-minded Paul saw fit to lodge attack against anyway. She confessed in black and white to exactly what he is still accusing her of these many ages after, and we must ask, particularly in the face of continued subjugation of the female (even from the time of Paul), that's righteous? But what about her approved confession of Genesis 3:13, and how much greater would that teaching from him have been? That she was “beguiled” was all she confessed to, and all she proved having need to confess of in the garden before God.
I John 1:9 says, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” Proverbs 28:13 says, “He that covers his sins shall not prosper, but whoever confesses and forsakes them shall have mercy.”
Despite the clear word of God, and despite a Christ who commands that we ourselves confess in order to be set free, the tradition of the Church falls in line behind a Paul to justify subjugation of a rightly confessed female before God. Note also, God asked her this question, and that God asked confirms that what she too said (and even in the presence of a man) would matter according to the plan of God. Unlike a Paul, even at a moment as critical as the fall, God did not prove to desire her silence (and particularly given that the man only saw fit to lodge accusation). If all she sought to do was learn from and then follow the example of an Adam, then she too would have, as did an Adam and like the enemy does, accuse the brethren. But she did not, operating with respect for her own separate “head,” she alone did not lodge accusation against the brethren but confessed truth to the glory of God instead.
Genesis 3:14 confirms His belief of her confession, saying, “Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life.” Here is where we know God had respect for her statement as a confession of truth. A soon to be punished Adam however did not confess a truth that a righteous God could act on. Who knew that the words “Because thou hast done this” by God in Genesis 3:16 proves a demonstration in righteousness by the female in Genesis 3:13, and even today according to the actual truth in word, stands (whether acknowledged by the traditional male pulpit or not) as our first biblical example of making a right confession before God? In the aftermath of the fall, with a stubborn Adam still rejecting God, she alone emerged as a model citizen! The male tradition certainly won’t teach us this, but astounding isn’t it? So whether intended or not, Paul actually launched attack against one justly walking in the righteousness of God (and even subjugated by the man), and it was an attack even first against God as it is his righteousness.
But Paul said, “And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.” Due to the male tradition, a blinded Paul proves not to comprehend that the transgression of Eve WAS obediently covered by confession of her sin before God. In a world where the God who created already knew it would fall, Eve proved to function according to call. She alone demonstrated respect and fear of God by justly confessing the truth of her sin, and doing so in right alignment with the provision of Confession already made available by God. Further, pride went before the fall, so how is it that the accusing, un-broken, proud attitude of a soon to be punished Adam, arrogant even while standing before God, is not evidence that he too was deceived (and even more so than a now confessed Eve) by the enemy? How selectively convenient of Paul. Yet at the Return of Christ, acting in like mind of a garden Adam will be enough to take each of us straight to Hell.
Genesis 3:15 says, “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” This confirms the difference God was only able to draw between the serpent and the “head” of the female but not also between the “head” of an Adam and the serpent.
In Genesis 3:16 God says to the female, “I will greatly multiply thy sorrow.” What we fail to note is that in order to “multiply” her sorrow, there must first be, in whole or in part, at least a seed of that sorrow to begin with, otherwise there is nothing to multiply. Hence we have proof of her sorrow (as even acknowledged by God) at the top of Genesis 3:16, a sorrow expressed by her in direct aftermath of the fall, confirming crucial repentance, and even a repentance first evidenced in her confession of Genesis 3:13. I am not getting into issues as to why Genesis 3:16 only represents consequences due to the fall itself for the female (even as it still does today for us) and not a personal punishment of her by God, except to say, given a confession of her sin in Genesis 3:13 which God proves respect for in Genesis 3:14, and then even that God acknowledged her repentance in Genesis 3:16 (saying that he would “multiply“ what was already her present “sorrow“), unless God is a liar and not who he says he is, a God proving faithful and just to forgive us our sins, she was not punished. There is a sound explanation in word inclusive of the Hebrew dismissing the issue of punishment in Genesis 3:16, but given that her confession and state of repentance was already fully endorsed by God at and prior to the beginning of Genesis 3:16, all other details regarding Genesis 3:16 are academic in nature only. God, who is no respecter of persons, did not position a proven unjust man to “rule over” (even) a female proving to walk in his righteousness. To do this, He might as well give Heaven to be ruled over by Hell as well. It sounds ridiculous, but it’s the same mind-set.
Genesis 3:20 says, “And Adam called his wife’s name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.” - Not only is this the first time the perspective of Adam in word acknowledges the female as his “wife,” but even post-fall she is still honored by God in name and title as an “Eve” meaning “life-giver” and “mother of all living” as a childless, virgin in a fallen garden.
Genesis 3:21 says, “Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.“ What we must focus our attention on here is the word “also.“ The use of “also” in this verse makes the man Adam secondary in this work by God (symbolically covering sin) to the primary who is the female Eve. God only made “coats of skins” for two people, and he only referred to Adam in this process as an “also“ because his actions are actually first directed to the female Eve. Adam, her husband, again, is only referenced by God as “also.” This confirms that God was only able to cover the sin of both due to the just actions (confession/repentance) of the female alone and not a still stubborn Adam. Remember, Adam did not confess, he did not repent, and he alone was punished. How could God have justly used him for anything in such a state?
Genesis 3:24 says, “So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.” It was Adam alone who was driven out of the garden by God, never also a confessed and honored Eve. She left according to the call of God only to remain as a wife to Adam. In a confessed state she was not even barred from the tree of life, else then what does that say of us?
So when Paul says, “And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in transgression“ it is he and others thinking like him in obedience to the tradition, who prove themselves deceived and grossly, even dangerously, in transgression. Again I say to the Church, give me proof in word that your subjugation of the female is of God and not the work of subtle, clever, and manipulative unclean spirits, because if you are depending on Paul to do it, this isn‘t it.
What are your comments?
“Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor 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 transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.”
But it seems God had other ideas.
Genesis 3:13 - “And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me and I did eat.“ This is a confession of the female ironically stating (given the “accusation” of Paul) that she was indeed “beguiled” or tricked, even deceived. She willingly spoke her truth before God. As such, this was a fallen but proven righteous female who a traditionally-minded Paul saw fit to lodge attack against anyway. She confessed in black and white to exactly what he is still accusing her of these many ages after, and we must ask, particularly in the face of continued subjugation of the female (even from the time of Paul), that's righteous? But what about her approved confession of Genesis 3:13, and how much greater would that teaching from him have been? That she was “beguiled” was all she confessed to, and all she proved having need to confess of in the garden before God.
I John 1:9 says, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” Proverbs 28:13 says, “He that covers his sins shall not prosper, but whoever confesses and forsakes them shall have mercy.”
Despite the clear word of God, and despite a Christ who commands that we ourselves confess in order to be set free, the tradition of the Church falls in line behind a Paul to justify subjugation of a rightly confessed female before God. Note also, God asked her this question, and that God asked confirms that what she too said (and even in the presence of a man) would matter according to the plan of God. Unlike a Paul, even at a moment as critical as the fall, God did not prove to desire her silence (and particularly given that the man only saw fit to lodge accusation). If all she sought to do was learn from and then follow the example of an Adam, then she too would have, as did an Adam and like the enemy does, accuse the brethren. But she did not, operating with respect for her own separate “head,” she alone did not lodge accusation against the brethren but confessed truth to the glory of God instead.
Genesis 3:14 confirms His belief of her confession, saying, “Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life.” Here is where we know God had respect for her statement as a confession of truth. A soon to be punished Adam however did not confess a truth that a righteous God could act on. Who knew that the words “Because thou hast done this” by God in Genesis 3:16 proves a demonstration in righteousness by the female in Genesis 3:13, and even today according to the actual truth in word, stands (whether acknowledged by the traditional male pulpit or not) as our first biblical example of making a right confession before God? In the aftermath of the fall, with a stubborn Adam still rejecting God, she alone emerged as a model citizen! The male tradition certainly won’t teach us this, but astounding isn’t it? So whether intended or not, Paul actually launched attack against one justly walking in the righteousness of God (and even subjugated by the man), and it was an attack even first against God as it is his righteousness.
But Paul said, “And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.” Due to the male tradition, a blinded Paul proves not to comprehend that the transgression of Eve WAS obediently covered by confession of her sin before God. In a world where the God who created already knew it would fall, Eve proved to function according to call. She alone demonstrated respect and fear of God by justly confessing the truth of her sin, and doing so in right alignment with the provision of Confession already made available by God. Further, pride went before the fall, so how is it that the accusing, un-broken, proud attitude of a soon to be punished Adam, arrogant even while standing before God, is not evidence that he too was deceived (and even more so than a now confessed Eve) by the enemy? How selectively convenient of Paul. Yet at the Return of Christ, acting in like mind of a garden Adam will be enough to take each of us straight to Hell.
Genesis 3:15 says, “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” This confirms the difference God was only able to draw between the serpent and the “head” of the female but not also between the “head” of an Adam and the serpent.
In Genesis 3:16 God says to the female, “I will greatly multiply thy sorrow.” What we fail to note is that in order to “multiply” her sorrow, there must first be, in whole or in part, at least a seed of that sorrow to begin with, otherwise there is nothing to multiply. Hence we have proof of her sorrow (as even acknowledged by God) at the top of Genesis 3:16, a sorrow expressed by her in direct aftermath of the fall, confirming crucial repentance, and even a repentance first evidenced in her confession of Genesis 3:13. I am not getting into issues as to why Genesis 3:16 only represents consequences due to the fall itself for the female (even as it still does today for us) and not a personal punishment of her by God, except to say, given a confession of her sin in Genesis 3:13 which God proves respect for in Genesis 3:14, and then even that God acknowledged her repentance in Genesis 3:16 (saying that he would “multiply“ what was already her present “sorrow“), unless God is a liar and not who he says he is, a God proving faithful and just to forgive us our sins, she was not punished. There is a sound explanation in word inclusive of the Hebrew dismissing the issue of punishment in Genesis 3:16, but given that her confession and state of repentance was already fully endorsed by God at and prior to the beginning of Genesis 3:16, all other details regarding Genesis 3:16 are academic in nature only. God, who is no respecter of persons, did not position a proven unjust man to “rule over” (even) a female proving to walk in his righteousness. To do this, He might as well give Heaven to be ruled over by Hell as well. It sounds ridiculous, but it’s the same mind-set.
Genesis 3:20 says, “And Adam called his wife’s name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.” - Not only is this the first time the perspective of Adam in word acknowledges the female as his “wife,” but even post-fall she is still honored by God in name and title as an “Eve” meaning “life-giver” and “mother of all living” as a childless, virgin in a fallen garden.
Genesis 3:21 says, “Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.“ What we must focus our attention on here is the word “also.“ The use of “also” in this verse makes the man Adam secondary in this work by God (symbolically covering sin) to the primary who is the female Eve. God only made “coats of skins” for two people, and he only referred to Adam in this process as an “also“ because his actions are actually first directed to the female Eve. Adam, her husband, again, is only referenced by God as “also.” This confirms that God was only able to cover the sin of both due to the just actions (confession/repentance) of the female alone and not a still stubborn Adam. Remember, Adam did not confess, he did not repent, and he alone was punished. How could God have justly used him for anything in such a state?
Genesis 3:24 says, “So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.” It was Adam alone who was driven out of the garden by God, never also a confessed and honored Eve. She left according to the call of God only to remain as a wife to Adam. In a confessed state she was not even barred from the tree of life, else then what does that say of us?
So when Paul says, “And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in transgression“ it is he and others thinking like him in obedience to the tradition, who prove themselves deceived and grossly, even dangerously, in transgression. Again I say to the Church, give me proof in word that your subjugation of the female is of God and not the work of subtle, clever, and manipulative unclean spirits, because if you are depending on Paul to do it, this isn‘t it.
What are your comments?
Replies are closed for this discussion.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Pastor valentine on
-
We who Jesus hold Christ as Lord and Saviour . KNOW that the BILBE is the Inspired word of God. From Genesis to Revelation. Our Sister dawn davidson preaches another gospel, the gospel of Dawn davidson. I encourage all to know God's word for yourself. Misinterpetation of God's word, will, and way are strong in this post. Question... Who should we believe The Apsotle paul or this woman
-
-
Permalink Reply by Hezekiah Ben Israel on
-
If you preached the right doctrine, you could help her. She is just in error. She will turn from it, if you give her sound doctrine.
-
-
-
Does that not sound familiar. lol.
-
-
-
Yes, Brother. It is. lol.
I just want you to come under the covenant of our Fathers. You think you are, but that Sunday thing is not good. For you to know that this is false makes me wonder, why you don't know Sunday is false. -
-
-
Romans 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
Romans 6:1-2 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
Romans 6:14 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Romans 3: 29-31 Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also: Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith. Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
What up with Paul saying this if he is the one who said that Jesus did it all, no more moral law? Did you read the Animal sacrifice Thread? -
-
-
Read this Thread.
http://abcpreachers.ning.com/profiles/blogs/did-jesus-take-away-the...
Paul is talking about the animal sacrifice Law, and the Moral Law. The Moral law is the covenant, and the animal Sacrifice law was the shadow of things to come.
Is this not Jesus?
Daniel 9:26-27 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.
Do you believe that Jesus is the Messiah? It says that the Messiah will cause sacrifice and oblation to cease. If Jesus is the Messiah, then he caused Sacrifice to end.
Leviticus 3:1-2 And if his oblation be a sacrifice of peace offering, if he offer it of the herd; whether it be a male or female, he shall offer it without blemish before the LORD.
And he shall lay his hand upon the head of his offering, and kill it at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation: and Aaron's sons the priests shall sprinkle the blood upon the altar round about.
Animal Sacrifice and the Levitical Priesthood. The Moral law, which is the covenant of God, is still good. -
-
Permalink Reply by Dawn Davidson on
-
Lahry You Said "Grace is not a liscense to do as you please." I agree with you but you all certainly prove to think Adam had a license to do as he pleased. You teach/support that in the absence of just confession (given that we know a punished Adam did not make one and you reject the validity of 3:13, 3:14, 3:15 and 3:16 in reference to the female) a righteous God in the face of sin only saw fit to further it. Upon what basis did God prove not to destroy us after the garden and upon what basis can he be proven just to have covered sin in the garden which had gone completely un-confessed?
-
-
-
Brother Watson,
You need to refrain from using that type of language to (Lahry) Sibley or anyone else. Regardless of what you interpret as offensive, there is a better way to say it and even to the glory of God. You only take away from yourself in the eyes of others when you do such things. -
-
-
Brother Watson,
You said: "I agree with you 100% I'll choose Paul any day over the Jezebel spirit, and the spirit of error that is controlling Sister Davidson's mind. I pity her, I really do."
The truth is you choose Paul over God. -
-
-
Brother Watson,
But your preference before God proves to be in favor of a circular argument beginning with a traditionally-minded Paul who could only justify subjugation based upon a garden word that he did not, and you (and all of your brothers) cannot, explain to the glory of God and not the man. Actual details of the garden aside, all of you, Paul included, were and are guilty of yet still supporting subjugation in the face of a freedom wrought by the Precious Blood of Christ Jesus. You can't get around that, and you for darn sure won't address it either.
And people like newview, I assume knowing no better, is practically now committing blasphemy against the Holy Ghost to prove their own preference for Paul in an effort to dismiss the contradiction. You certainly have not outright said the same, but newview is first following your example.
And once you open the door to make God into the hypocrite (not that anyone should dare ever) where does it end? Even Paul would not now be pleased with this. He did not take beating upon beating to advance the word of God just to have believers later prove a willingness to make that same God into a hypocrite so that men in a selfish and demonic use of a Paul might get and then maintain vain glory subjugating the female. In the face of contradiction, you think Paul would not rather admit that he was wrong? -
-
-
Pastor Valentine,
Who said the Bible is not the inspired word of God? I never said that, and nor do I present it. How do you know that it doesn't please God to humble the tradition of men using the truth of the very word they first mangled through a Paul who would himself admit he was not perfect? But if it serves you to bow down to Paul and not God then go right ahead.
And that Paul proves to be a man of tradition takes nothing away from how he was otherwise used and called by God. He was a tremendous servant of God but he was not perfect, even what he says must line up with the whole of word. Who is exempt from that? I simply don't believe in worshipping a human being. If it does not prove God as righteous it is wrong. Paul, like many other men during his age, missed the truth of the garden. I can understand why Paul missed it, but men of this age, so far down the line in ability to fully comprehend and align sound doctrine, I don't know. It doesn't speak well before God. -
-
-
If one jot or title of any scripture from Paul or otherwise is in error /err. The our faith is in vain. If we follow your precepts and comcepts on scripture. If we follow your understanding then maybe incest is okay or maybe homsexuality is just a phase, or maybe a man can have mutiple wifes ,maybe it's ok to have sex in the temple or just maybe Jesus and satan are brothers. I mean if you can twist and turn scripture why can't thee, and thou and whom so ever. The word of God is what it is, sorry sister dawn God did not ask your opinion or mine . In reality God doesn't care what you or I think , for he is God . The creator of all that is, was, or shall ever be. I ask you to stop spreading this foolishness for it is the work of satan / anti christ. Any other doctrine that is not Built on the foundation. That was layed by Jesus the Christ or rejects the deity of Chrsit Jesus. Is of the antichrist
-
© 2024 Created by Raliegh Jones Jr..
Powered by
