a reply to: 2012newstart
There is a need of more saints like Paul and the rest in history, St Padre Pio and Mother Theresa in our days. They all followed Jesus in his steps
doing bigger or lesser works that Jesus himself did, as he said "you wil do greater works than mine".
Mother Theresa...yes. Don't know much about St. Padre Pio. I do know Mother Theresa questioned the goodness of God, in all of her ministry helping
those in Calcutta.
Here's Paul's take on widows and men having long hair....
In 1 Timothy 5:9-12 (KJV) we read:
9 Do not let a widow under sixty years old be taken into the number, and not unless she has been the wife of one man, 10 well reported for good works:
if she has brought up children, if she has lodged strangers, if she has washed the saints’ feet, if she has relieved the afflicted, if she has
diligently followed every good work.
11 But refuse the younger widows; for when they have begun to grow wanton against Christ, they desire to marry, 12 having condemnation because they
have cast off their first faith.
Paul thus said that a widow under sixty should not receive charity. (1 Tim. 5:9, 11-13.) No command in the Torah spoke like this. The "poor tithe" of
Israel (every 3d year) simply went to widows and orphans. (Some portion was also given strangers and Levites.) To repeat, Paul wrote in 1 Timothy
No widow may be put on the list of widows unless she is OVER SIXTY.
Or Saul's views on men with long hair.....
Every picture of our Lord depicts Him with long hair. One who complied with the Nazarite vow of holiness would agree not to cut his hair for a period
of time. See Numbers 6:1-8. The period of time was up to the penitent to establish at the start, although Jewish tradition says it was normally 30
days. Thus, his hair could grow very long. The Jewish Encyclopedia relates:
The most prominent outward mark of the Nazarite was long, flowing hair, which was cut at the expiration of the vow and offered as a sacrifice
(Num.l.c.; Jer. vii. 29). www.jewishencyclopedia.com...
Samson had long hair as a Nazarite, and in it was his power from God:
Samson was a Nazarite, whose mother abstained from wine during her pregnancy. His superhuman strength lay in his long, unshorn locks (Judges xiii.et
seq.). Samuel's mother promised to dedicate him to God during his whole life, saying, "There shall no razor come upon his head" (I Sam. i. 11);
The term "nazirite" comes from the Hebrew word nazir meaning "consecrated" or "separated." This vow required the man or woman to:
•Abstain from wine, wine vinegar, grapes, raisins, and according to some — alcohol and vinegar from alcohol
•Refrain from cutting the hair on one's head; and
•Avoid corpses and graves, even those of family members.
[Yahshua's / Jesus' remark 'let the dead bury their dead' takes on a potentially Nazirite significance.]
However, Paul says long hair is a 'shame' to the one with long hair. Paul in 1 Cor. 11:14 says:
"Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a dishonor to him?"
Can Paul be truly reconciled with the word of God?
Paulinists defend Paul by saying that a Nazarite let himself fall into a shameful appearance by having long hair. jesusalive.cc...
However, Paul is wrong. This conflict proves why reading a text is key. In Numbers 6:5, we read about the 'not cutting hair' principle as one to
demonstrate greater holiness and consecration:
All the days of the vow of his separation there shall no razor come upon his head: until the days be fulfilled, in the which he separateth himself
unto the LORD, he shall be holy, and shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow.
Clearly long hair was a sign of greater holiness, just as avoiding wine and dead bodies was a state of greater holiness than ordinary life. Paul is
wrong that long hair meant shame. That was a Roman belief, as all the statues of Caesar or of Roman statesmen always depict such men with short hair.
Women being saved through childbirth....
One of the strangest statements by Paul is:
"Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.“ (1 Tm 2:15 KJV)
"But she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety." (1 Tim 2:15 NIV)
As one Nigerian pastor puts it: "This is a most bizarre doctrine of salvation."
First, please notice that WORKS play a role in this method of salvation, thereby contradicting what Paul teaches elsewhere, e.g., Eph. 2:8-9. So what
happened to faith alone?
And this contradiction is not Paul simply affirming childbirth saves. Other numerous actions are required (whether from her or her children) --
"charity, and holiness with sobriety."
Is there any escape from this reading? From admitting Paul contradicts himself? No.
The Greek verb sothesetai (“will be saved”) denotes “salvation” and not simply 'preservation.' The mention of charity, holiness and sobriety
as other virtuous deeds make this clear. Payne agrees in context that this is speaking of "spiritual salvation," as it comes on the heals of Paul
talking about the Fall. And Paul never uses the word "saved" for anything but spiritual salvation in every other use Paul employed in the NT. Paul
used a different word when he meant physical preservation. See Philip Barton Payne, Man and Woman: One in Christ (Zondervan: 2009) at 418-422.
Second, the Greek says a woman is saved dia tes teknogonias (“through the childbirth”). Pretty unambiguous stuff. But some contend this means
women are saved by means of the birth of Jesus. ("How are women saved?"; Payne, id., at 422.) Yet, this does not fit the rest of the sentence, which
again extols other acts of virtue that are necessary for salvation, whether by her or her children.
This passage is a true dilemma.
In my view, what it really says is that a woman is saved by childbirth if her children exhibit faith, charity and holiness with sobriety. For the
subject is singular feminine with sothesetai -- "she will be saved" and then "childbirth" arises, and the subject changes to "they," implying the
children she produces. Thus, Paul teaches a woman's salvation hinges upon the obedience of her children -- their faith, charity, holiness and
Very strange stuff indeed for Paul who elsewhere teaches salvation is by faith alone! See Romans 3:4-5; Eph. 2:8-9. P.C. Spicq found this passage so
"bizarre" he said Paul could not have uttered it. See Philip Barton Payne, Man and Woman (Zondervan: 2009) at 417.
Thus, Paulinists have a very strange hero -- self-contradictory and bizarre unless they edit him down to tolerable limits, or distort his words to
avoid their plain meaning.
NOTE: PAUL REPEATS THIS BIZARRE IDEA OF SALVATION BY FAMILY RELATIONSHIP + FAITH OF ONE
Paul's personal view of salvation similar to that in 1 Timothy is in line with 1 Corinthians 10:10-14. Paul will teach a child is saved by its mother
or father's faith. (And the non-believing spouse is saved by the believing spouse's faith.) The Disciples Literal New Testatment reads:
But Do Not Divorce Your Christian Spouse