It's like this Baker....women according to God's plan are to be under the headship of men. There's nothing wrong with a women teaching, prophesying or even leading a battle (as in Deborah)etc. but it's always under the headship of a man. Even Deborah recognized this. She did all she could to get Barak to lead even telling him that the battle they were about to wage the credit would go to a woman. The credit went to the woman who put a tent peg thru the skull of the King of the opposition.

So being the Pastor of a church is not ok with biblical principles.The mandate is very clearly spelled out in Timothy & Titus. Everywhere in scripture it was "pick out the spiritual men among you" type of thing (Acts 6) for leadership.



well then show me. I do know there was some dispute about a few of the books like James (works doctrine), Esther (God not mentioned), Hebrews (unknown author) etc but all were eventually included because of the widely historical acceptance and because they with much discussion did agree on the validity of these books.

Go back and read about Jerome and this thoughts on the matter, and he was 4th Century.

I pointed out that the Bible itself quotes apocryphal lit. Not good enough?.

you may want to check your blog for the answer.....  

Wow. Lol. Well, don't be halfway about it. There's nothing in the context really that you can debate much. It's there again in Timothy:



You have a lot of stuff there about women not speaking in church, but where is the stuff where someone says directly that they can? Usually in times like that you stiffen up and say that since the Bible says it, it's done. This time, though, is one of those where it doesn't mean what it is supposed to mean.

You do pick and choose, you know.

I think you're asking very good questions Baker. I'm not offended at all.

The language here seems straightforward enough and clear doesn't it? Does Paul really mean what we think he means? If he does, is this an instruction he intended for universal application, regardless of historical context and circumstances?

Women functioned in prominent leadership positions (Phoebe, Lydia, Euodia, Synthche, Priscilla etc). They were called fellow workers, colaborers in the gospel, apostles (small a) etc. We see the Spirit of God empowered both men and women to be proclaimers of God's work in Christ (Acts 2:14-18). Women's participation in the gospel and vocal prayer in the congregation were a normal part of early church life, (1 Cor 11).

So in light of all this we have to consider reasons for the restriction inposed on women in the text you cited as well as 1 Cor 14. We must look closer at the text and the situation in the church which Paul addresses which was in Timothy's congregation.

If, as we have already seen, a curtailed role for women was NOT God's divine plan then this restriction of their speaking and teaching and leading in 1 Cor 14 and Tim 2 must be in response to critical local situations.

Both churches were in difficulty. When you read Timothy you can see immediately that the integrity of the Christian faith is at stake. Remember this is a letter to Timothy from Paul.

We see here there are some who are teaching false doctrines and are occupied with myths and other speculative ideas which contradicts the sound and sincere faith, 1:3-4. Some have wandered into vain debates, seeking to be teachers without understanding and discernment v6-7. Throughout there is concern for maintaining and guarding the truth, 1:19, 2:4-7, 3:14-16, 4:1-3, 6-7,16; 6:1-5,12.

We do not know the identity of the false teachers but we can conclude that they had a disregard for proper decorum and practices in the church as well as to a rejection of the institution of marriage (remind you of anything?)

I think it is noteworthy that particular attention is directed to young widows who are urged to marry, have children and manage their homes. When these normal, socially prescribed roles and functions are rejected these women are prone to gossip, being busybodies, and saying things they ought not to, 1 Tim 5:13.

My guess when I put it all together in context there is two possibilities....1) the women in the church at Ephesus were the primary advocates and promoters of the heretical teachings or 2)the women in the church had been particularly influenced by the heretical teachers.

Look at your cults. Look how many women get dragged into them. Look at Jim Jones and Koresh etc. Alot of women especially seem prone to these ideas. They get emotionally involved quite often with the leaders.

In 2 Tim 3:6-9 we see just such a situation where this same church is addressed. We see there the women were the special targets of those who "oppose the truth" and are "unable to acknowledge the truth."

In both cases 2 Cor 14 and here in Timothy Paul's restrictive word must be understood within a context where false teaching is an issue. He's basically telling them to shut up and listen to sound teaching as they have become loud voices, advocates of ideas that are upsetting the congregational and home life. The submission is most likely a submission to the elders of the church who are guardians of the truth. The prohibition against "authority over a man" must be understood within the context of their rejection of the authority of the male leaders in Ephesus who teaching is being undermined by their heretical views.

Because we don't see women denied elsewhere to speak up and be heard we have to see it's most probably directed here against these women involved in false teaching who have abused proper exercise of authority in the church by usurpation and domination of the male leaders at Ephesus.

That's why he brings it back to Adam and Eve. It's sort of a reminder. Remember what happened? Eve usurped Adam's role basically changing places and look what happened. Don't let it happen in the church. Men are supposed to be the headship not the women.

And, it's not that I pick and choose Baker. It's got to make sense. If I just took it at face value, then it wouldn't make sense because of the rest of scripture which is clearly ok for women to participate in the church. It's all about exegeting scripture properly. Context is very important.

A text, taken out of context is nothing but a pretext and you can make it say whatever you want it to say. Many have used these verses at face value, totally ignoring the context. In doing so they have to ignore the other scriptures of the dedicated women were were following God to the letter and being a great service to the church in doing so.

I just found this on CARM

In verse 11, Paul says that a woman should quietly receive instruction. Please note that "The word, heµsychia, translated “quietness” in 1 Timothy 2:11 and silent in verse 12, does not mean complete silence or no talking. It is clearly used elsewhere (Acts 22:2; 2 Thes. 3:12) to mean “settled down, undisturbed, not unruly. A different word (sigaoµ) means “to be silent, to say nothing” (cf. Luke 18:39; 1 Cor. 14:34).”3 Paul is advocating orderliness in this verse.

It really does help to go into the original language for meaning. Check this link


WWW Link

I understand the situation, but the fact is the details of that situation aren't lined out in the Bible. I was taught that it was a church in a town where the pagan temple had prostitutes for priestesses. For that reason any semblance of female leadership was to be purged.



And that is my point when I say that Paul's letters were never intended to be directed to all of mankind. They are to specific churches, focusing on specific problems. I don't believe Paul would have ever wanted his advice to these churches to be seen as edicts from God for all time to all people.

Odd that God would require us to know greek...

Yes, and no. The principles are the same. But you're right, we must take careful note of who is being spoken to and for what reason.

Even tho women are to take part in the church and have been praised for doing so in other parts of scripture, it's only when they are not usurping the role that God had given men it's in a postivie context.

If you go right back to Genesis you see this:

"......your desire shall be to your husband and he shall rule over you." 3:16b

Some believe this to be she would have this great desire (physically) for him. Anyone that knows anything about human nature would have to second guess this one. I believe it means that her desire would be to rule over her husband. She would struggle with this. If you turn a page and look at Cain and his struggle with sin, you would see that same word "desire" and it says:

"If you do well, shall you not be accepted? And If you do not well, sin lies at the door. And to you shall be his desire and you shall rule over him."

The desire here with Cain and sin and with Eve had to do with control and rule. Cain's struggle would be over sin and Eve over her husband's rule. This would be the struggle of women from that day forward.



no, he doesn't require it. We have our own English translation that is fine. But for those that want to go a bit deeper to understand exactly what is being taught, it's beneficial.

This is true. Ephesus was known for all sorts of Pagan worship including Artemis (Diana) and you can read about this in Acts 19. Paul had quite the bondfire there one night with many leaving these pagan beliefs behind. At one point this was said to counter Paul:

"But when they knew that he was a Jew all with one voice about the space of two hours cried out, Great is Diana of the Ephesians." 19:34

So remember this is where Timothy's church was. The women in his church were feeding into this pagan worship and speaking out against the truth in favor of this worship of Diana.

And yet, we have hundreds of years of people in one denomination or another saying women must be silent, etc. An all-powerful God who intended an inerrant book, and who could get it put together in such a way, and yet walked off from it before the majority of the world read it? I find that odd...

well chalk it up to human nature and the strong pull of sin. Again it started right in the garden. We want to go our own way and look for those that will tickle our ears to help us get there.

People are lacking in biblical literacy today. It's much easier to believe what they are being told than to find out for oneself. Someday, tho we stand before almighty God with nobody but ourselves to blame for how we treated his word. I believe if people truly searched out the scriptures all this wouldn't be happening. You can see the warning to the 7 churches in Revelation 1-3 about this...."don't let them in."

Keep in mind that Satan was a great quoter of scripture himself. But you can be sure he always twisted it to his advantage. Should God not have left it behind for us knowing that it would be ill used?

[quote]"1 Timothy 2:11-12 (King James Version)

8 I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.

9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.[/quote


Verse 8 is more concerned with the gesture of raising of the hands at prayer and St.Paul was teaching about how external stances adopted during prayer should reflect one's inner attitude. Whatever gestures one does in and of itself isn't pleasing to God, what is pleasing is the sign of respect where man humbles himself interiorily. Of men, St.Paul cautions not to approach prayer with earthly ambitions and women need to be sure vanity doesn't creep in.

Verses 9 & 10 are St. Paul's remarks how what he has previously stated about men applies to women. For these things, they are put on the same level, however, in the liturgy of the synagogue, only men were allowed to lead the prayers. Women were kept in an area apart and had no active role whatsoever. St.Paul also teaches that for their attendence at liturgical acts (the early form of the Mass), he offers suggestions about proper dress and grooming similiar to what St.Peter says in his first letter. The essence of these guidelines remain unchanged through today: Christian women should dress with an elegance that reflects modesty appropriate to devout Christianity.

Verses 11-14 has St.Paul giving general regulations for liturgical assemblies. The prohibition of permitting no woman to teach is not an absolute one; it refers only to public acts of worship. In order to make it clear that he is not just giving a personal opinion, he sets the prohibition into context of the divine plan of Creation and biblical account of the Fall. His arguments are not sociological ones, not confined to a particular culture, They are theological arguments. St.Paul spoke vigourously about the basic equality of man and woman in Gal. 3:28 and certain women helped him spread the gospel. What he is saying is simply this. The essential equality of man and woman does not mean that they have identical roles in the Chruch 1Cor.14:33-35. Also, although woman are forbidden to teach in a public, official setting, (role of heirarchy) they can and should teach in the context of religious education and family life.

Verse 15 has St.Paul stressing that marriage is a holy calling and some heretics were arguing the contrary 1Tim.4:3. Elsewhere, St.Paul speaks of the excellence of virginity. 1Cor.7:25-38.
Bottom line: these teachings are to be applied to daily life. What St.Paul says here, while it should be interpreted in the light of condition at the time, these teachings, nonetheless, have perennial value.

Literacy isn't a requirement for salvation, is it? Odd that God would put the souls of men in the hands of other men when He could just do it himself...



Obviously God wants Satan to do everything that Satan does according to your book, because not only does God allow it, He invites it. Granted, I don't believe such mythologies for an instant, but you're the one that believes that stuff...

...so, I guess you really can't predict what God might do to set pitfalls and traps for us to fall into, if you believe in that kind of a god.

As does the copy of Aurelius' Meditations I have on my desk. That doesn't mean it was intended to be an inerrant spiritual guide for people 2000 years later. To be honest, not even the Bible claims that...

well it's an important part of it. But no, you can hear the gospel, accept it and be saved. The thief on the cross wasn't very literate I'm sure. Neither were the fishermen at the first I'm sure.

Is odd your new favorite word? Everything seems odd to you Baker....lol.

God ALWAYS works thru people. Fist thru the Prophets and then the Apostles and then they sent us out as apostles (little a) which means sent out ones.



no Satan sets the traps, God pulls us out. Check out the life of Joseph if you want to talk the pits. God is in the search and rescue business. It's Satan that's into the destruction business.

"But as for you you thought evil against me, but God meant it to good, to bring to pass as it is this day to save much people alive."

God takes the bad in our lives and can turn it around for good.

Tragedy and hardships that come into our lives can either draw us closer to God or away from him. The same SUN (SON) that melts wax, hardens clay.

I also read daily Lenten meditations. They are meant for a different purpose than that of the Holy Bible. The Bible was intended to be and is an inerrant spiritual guide and has other good uses as well. The Chruch is a living society and the Bible greatly influences theology, the liturgy (the Pope has ordered some changes be made over the next couple of years {not fast enough to suit me!} in which some of the prayers of the Mass will fall in line more closely with the Latin text), and even catechetics. Of course, all of the doctrinal and moral teachings are based either explicitly or implicitly on the Catholic version.

So, the 73 Books of the Canon is the Chruch's official list of sacred writings all written by men under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The Bible contains divine revelation and in conjunction with sacred Tradition and teaching authority of the Chruch constitute the rule of Catholic Faith. The Canon was fixed and determined by Tradition and teaching authority of the Church as far back as the Council of Rome around 382. If your into such things, the putting together of it is a remarkable read in and of itself. Of course, I believe the Church is the maker and official interpreter of the Bible....I imagine, no, I'm sure, KFC would disagree.

The Bible only principle that sprang out of the Protestant Revolution is wrong. The Bible isn't intended to be a sole rule of faith. Instead, it's intended for instruction, meditation, spriitual reading, encouragement, devotion and also serves as proof and testimony of the Church's doctrines and divine authority as I have addressed so often. As a complete and exclusive guide to heaven in the hands of every person, though, can never be. That just doesn't make sense.



Actually, in 2Tim.3:16-17 we read, "All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work." Perhaps, KFC can come up with others.

In 1Tim. 3:15, the Bible itself calls the Chruch and not it the "pillar and ground of the truth". And I'll be quick to say that this passage doesn't diminish the BIble, it just meant that the authority of the Church was to be emphasized. Another thing is that the idea of the Scripture's authority existing apart from the authority of the teaching Church is utterly foreign to the early Chruch and was so for 1500 years before the printing press made Bible more easily available.

Hrm, given the Bible didn't exist when that was written, I find it odd that it could be referring to it. Much less the translations. When Paul was talking about "scripture", you really think he was referring to his own letters to the churches?

It's not odd at all. The bible didn't exist as a bound book with all the books put together but the scriptures were always considered inspired.

Jesus often refered back to the "scriptures."

"Have you not read this SCRIPTURE; "The stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner." Mark 12:10

"I was daily with you in the temple teaching, and you took me not; but the SCRIPTURES must be fulfilled." Mark 14:49

"If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came and the SCRIPTURE CANNOT BE BROKEN." John 10:35

Jesus himself said scripture cannot be broken.

Peter put Paul's writings on par with the other "scriptures"

"As also in all HIS (speaking of Paul) epistles speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood which they that are unlearned and unstable wrestle as they do also the other SCRIPTURES, unto their own destruction." 2 Peter 2:16

And of course we have Paul write what Lula mentioned above. Just because they were not formally bound together in one book didn't make them any less inspired. All the church did was recognize these inspired books and put them together in one book that we now recognize as our bible.

Jesus was not speaking about Paul's writings, because Paul hadn't written them yet. The fact that they weren't bound together means you have no clue, whatsoever, as to what Paul meant by "scriptures". As has been shown, they cite work in the NT that we consider apocryphal.

We don't consider the book of Enoch to be scripture, but many early church fathers did. Others believed that Pauls letters weren't inspired scripture. Others believed that letters by other early church leaders were scripture; Clement, if I recall correctly. So the idea that you can say that Paul said "scripture" and meant the exact words you hold in your hand is, frankly, silly.

You toss a bunch of passages that use the word "scripture", ignoring the fact that you HAVE NO CLUE if you and Paul, or even Jesus, are talking about the same works.

I know that you are going to say that Jesus can see into the future. Before you do, I'd like to know how, if we can retroactively apply things to broad terms like "scripture", why do you deny the Mormons that right? You can say that Jesus looked into the future and saw the KJV, but He didn't see the Book of Mormon?

They say he was talking about their book when he said "Scriptures". When you deal with post-dating prophecy, you have to deal with the fact that your deus ex mechina solution is also usable to any degree, by any one. For that matter, Muslims believe that Jesus also was a prophet of their religion.

Do you really think that that narrow set of literature is so obviously to everyone what Jesus was talking about? If so, a lot of people aren't seeing the obvious. God would let them all be so misled? Why?

I would assume that Paul was also talking OT (like Jesus)as he and the other Apostles pointed to them in their own writings.

The church fathers put the Apostle's writings alongside the OT as sacred scripture. That was a huge criteria for the NT canon. Each and every book either had to be written by an Apostle or closely associated with one like Luke.



who? I gave a list around here somewhere of the ones that didn't. Who are you thinking of? Jerome didn't even buy the Apocrypha, forget about the book of
Enoch.



not really because quite often they quoted from the same books they considerd scripture. Christ quoted as I've said before from just about every OT book. He even verified the whole OT with one line, the line about the first and last murder in the OT. From Abel to Zacharaus he said.

nope, wasn't even going in that direction. But that doesn't mean he can't. Of course I know he can. But when Jesus was talking scriptures, he was talking the OT scriptures already acessible to them.

Are you familiar with Ezra? Check out Chap 8.

It was after the Babylonian captivity and the people are gathering to hear the scriptures. We see Ezra standing on a pulpit of wood (first mention), we see Ezra opening the "book". We see the people stand up (in reverence) and we see him preaching from it. We see the formula for teaching today. We see it says in v8:

"So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly and gave the sense and caused them to understand the reading."

These are the same scriptures that Jesus was referring.



It's not God who is misleading them. It's Satan. Remember he's the prince of darkness. The scriptures are filled with warnings. Look at the letters to the seven churches in Rev 1-3. Each letter mentions the praises and condemnations of those seven churches. You keep seeing the warning "don't let them in. Don't let them in. Oh, you let them in." It's the world creeping into the church.

The world is filled with darkness. We think it's not but it's totally dark in a spiritual sense.

"For , behold the darkness shall cover the earth and gross darkness the people: but the Lord shall arise upon you and his glory shall be seen upon you. And the Gentiles shall come to your light and kings to the brightness of your rising." Isa 60:2

"And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil." Jesus.

It's only obvious for those who are in the light. It's not for those still in the dark.

In this case, Both Jesus and St.Paul were speaking about the OT scriptures. It could have been the Hebrew Scriptures or the Septuagint that were both around, just not bound and looking like the one on your desk. He could have been referring to the first 5 books, or the Pentateuch, the historical books, the Wisdom books, Job, Proverbs, Psalms or the Prophets books e.g. Isaias, Jeremiah, etc.

Just because a verse or two was cited from books that didn't make the inspired canonical list, doesn't in any way discount the inspired book that cited it. Just the fact that the Apostle quoted from the books points that the part they quoted was correct and without error.

We can thank the various Catholic Councils from 382 on, for deciding which books would make up the NT canon.

And just because people who never met Jesus decided 300 years later what THEY thought "scripture" means doesn't mean that it was the same thing Jesus or Paul or anyone else at the time had in mind.



Clement, Tertullian, Justin Martyr, and others. Clement was the one that accused the Jews of rejecting it because it lent credence to Christ through its prophesy. If I am not mistake Tertullian actually called it "Holy Scripture", but I'll have to check to find a citation.