Not really. God knew what he was doing. Men don't give birth to babies either. In that case, women are greater then men.

Men and women were given diff roles. When the roles get switched it's not God's perfect plan. When Adam and Eve slipped out of their roles that's when the trouble began. It's no diff today.

No matter how logical I try to be, it's work for me to be so. It's totally natural for my husband to be logical. Usually that's just the way it is. Women are proven to be more emotional than men. It's in their hormones and makeup. God knew exactly what he was doing when he put men in their place and women in theirs. We just haven't quite figured it out yet.



Yes, and for the most part when the women start taking over the churches, the strong men leave and that's not a good thing. Soon you have a church full of mostly women, children and a few weak men. Around here, there a loads of such churches and they are not strong at all.

well you haven't shown me one quote yet that wasn't first quoted in the OT.

Unger's Bible Dictionary gives reasons for the exclusion of these writings.

"They abound in historical and geographical inaccuracies and anachronisms.

They teach doctrines which are false and foster practices which are at variance with inspired Scripture.

They resort to literary types and display an artificiality of subject matter and styling out of keeping with inspired Scripture.

They lack the distinctive elements which give genuine Scripture their divine character, such as prophetic power and poetic and religious feeling."

Some other thoughts:

Philo, Alexandrian Jewish Philisopher (20BC-40AD) quoted the OT prolifically and even recognized the threefold division of the OT, but he never quoted from the Apocrypha as inspired.

Josephus (30AD-100AD) explicitly excludes the Apocrypha numbering the books of the OT as 22. Neither does he quote these books as Scripture.

The Jewish scholars of Jamnia (90AD) did not recognize the Apocrypha.

No canon or council of the Christian church for the first 400 years recognized the Apocrypha as inspired.

Many of the great fathers of the early church spoke out against the Apocrypha. Origen, Cyril & Athanasius.

Jerome rejected the Apocrypha as part of the canon. He at first refused even to translate these books into Latin but later he made a hurried translation of them. After his death these books were brought into his Latin Vulgate directly from the Old Latin Version.

Many Roman Catholic scholars through the Reformation period rejected the Apocrypha.

Not until 1546 AD to counter the reformation at the Council of Trent did the Apocryphal books receive full canonical status by the RCC.



Really? So you're saying this council approved the Aprocryphal books? You've got some documentation on this?

And yet, you assume Paul really didn't mean women shouldn't speak in church? Make it whatever suits you, I guess. On the one hand you say women should be allowed to speak, and on the other you say it isn't their role to preach, etc? Odd sort of double standard.

You are way off on that. There are several versions of the Bible from the first couple of centuries that not only included stuff we reject now, but also disputed the validity of books like Revelation.

The fact is there was NO accepted new testament for the first three centuries of the church at all, so your assertion seems a little weak.

Here is a perspective on apocryphal works. Not only did the early "councils" lean on apocryphal works, the New Testament cites them.

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.