same reason he preached that slavery was ok and that God installs nation's leaders. That reason: he was an f'ing idiot suckup.
2007-06-12 14:15:47
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
3⤋
Personally, I think Paul was speaking more about being an elder. Women are prophets and teachers not leaders. If the man is the leader of the home it is fitting he would be the leader of the church.
God has used women as prophets — to foretell future happenings: Exodus 15:20; Judges 4:4; II Kings 22:14; II Chronicles 34:22; Nehemiah 6:14; Isaiah 8:3.
2007-06-13 01:54:28
·
answer #2
·
answered by Cristi Brewer-Allen 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Paul did not seem to have a problem with women teachers per se; rather it seemed that he was against women teaching (having spiritual "authority" over) grown men.
Paul's concept of the church seemed to assume that the church was a really large extended family of sorts -- I believe that the book of Acts says that the church in Jerusalem all lived in the same house and had only communal property -- no one had personal property (The beginnings of Socialism?).
Since Paul believed that God had ordained the Man to be the head of his own family, then it was probably natural for him to assume that a man should also be the head of the spiritual family as well -- in order to be consistent.
We can only speculate why he felt this way. The easy answer would be to simply say that God told him so, and leave it at that.
2007-06-12 14:27:55
·
answer #3
·
answered by Randy G 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
In the context where Paul said this, keep in mind that it was a letter to an existing church. That particular church was having a problem with men stepping up and taking responsibility. Instead of the men preaching like they should, they were being lazy and allowing the women to do it instead.
2007-06-12 14:13:46
·
answer #4
·
answered by 87GN 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
Because Paul wanted people to convert to Christianity and at the time religious women were not generally recognized as anything but "priestesses of fertility rites", we call them prostitutes.
To make it simple, when a pagan male saw a women in religious attire two thousand years ago he figured he could give her a couple of bucks for a BJ or a f*ck.
In the Bible there are passages about this "casting silver" at a womens feet on the steps of the temple.
Needless to say if a woman back then said something like "No, our religion does not do that" she was likely to get her teeth bashed in and raped anyway.
2007-06-12 14:14:50
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
He didn't teach that women could not share the gospel message with the unsaved. He taught that God had instituted a divine order of authority and that women were not to be over men in a church setting. Paul drew his argument from the third chapter of Genesis where instead of it being God then Adam then Eve then the Serpent the order was reversed and Eve was deceived.
2007-06-12 14:17:04
·
answer #6
·
answered by Martin S 7
·
2⤊
1⤋
Where does it say that? The woman at Paul's time were coming out of paganism and had many questions. To avoid disruption in the meetings, Paul told them to go home and discuss things with their husbands. Later, women became a much needed part of the church and were praised by Paul for their abilities.
2007-06-12 14:12:25
·
answer #7
·
answered by Fish <>< 7
·
3⤊
1⤋
Paul did not teach that. Yoy have to take into context the time, the church he was writing to and the women he was talking about. the women were teaching in the wrong attutude and so paul did not want them to until they could be humble in their teaching.
2007-06-12 14:22:14
·
answer #8
·
answered by Firstbook 1
·
1⤊
0⤋
He was just following the traditions of the time. I am sure that if Paul were here today he would fight to have women be allowed to preach. And he would tell any church out there to make this so right away!
2007-06-12 14:13:59
·
answer #9
·
answered by Zezo Zeze Zadfrack 1
·
0⤊
1⤋
That actually depends on how you interpret the letters he wrote...
He said "let women be silent in church"... But the context indicates he meant for them to not be gossiping and bickering.
In other places he indicates that some women were "prophesying" which would indicate that they would be leading discussions.... and he approved that.
So if you keep things in context... he didn't say that women couldn't become preachers.
2007-06-12 14:15:27
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋
Actually, there's debate about whether Paul actually wrote some of those letters. If you look at the end of Romans, an undisputed Epistle of Paul, you read about lots of women. He refers to Phoebe, and the word "deacon" is used to describe her, but in other places that same Greek word is sometimes translated "minister." Also Prisilla and Aquila are both referred to as Apostles. It's all about who was doing the translating, and as the church grew more structured it gave in to societal norms, meaning, "shut up those women."
2007-06-12 14:18:29
·
answer #11
·
answered by keri gee 6
·
0⤊
2⤋