Say a phrase, and you are saved...

reply to post by adjensen

I had to research this recently, and found an essay where the guy wrote that Paul was being sarcastic in that part.

Sarcastic? Yeah, right.

Paul spoke out against women in more than one place. So I don't think he was being sarcastic.

Was Paul also being "sarcastic" when he wrote against homosexuality? Or was he basing it off the Old Testament law?

I don't remember the original source, but this question/answer is similar (the second answer specifically addresses your cited passage.)

The second answer which you recommend is the opinion of some person named "Bob Jones".

Even then, the point remains that Paul seems to be basing some parts of his teaching on the law.... and in some places, he speaks out against the law, as if it wasn't necessary anymore.

reply to post by jmdewey60

There is no law, as in an actual spelled out law, in the Old Testament, that Paul would have been referring to. You could possibly take it to mean "the Law" in general, meaning the Torah, where there is the idea that women should be submissive to their husbands.

The "law" Paul was referring to would have been the same "law" that Paul said was nailed to the cross.

If the law was nailed to the cross, then so would be the part that requires women to remain silent. So there was no real need for Paul to refer to the law when he made that statement.

Or, maybe more likely, it is more a rule that probably Paul made up for the conduct of the church services, but which he does not want to itemize in this letter, where it obviously would have been already well known in the church of Corinth.

I don't think he made it up.
But... if you are correct and Paul did make things up, whenever he felt the need to.... then there might be a serious problem.

Its a problem because Paul stated earlier that he "thinks" he has the holy spirit. So thats a big red flag right there.

I'm sure you wouldn't trust anybody who comes and tells you "I think I have the holy spirit, so listen to what I have to say" .

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


Paul was suggesting women remain silent in church to maintain order in the service. At that period of time women sat on one side of the synagogue and men on the other. Paul was saying it be better they asked questions of their husbands after the services to avoid interrupting. It doesn't really apply today, we don't have seating arrangements like that in a modern church.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Paul was suggesting women remain silent in church to maintain order in the service.

Whatever his reasons ....Paul also re-enforced his statement by saying "as the law demands".
So what is it? Has the law been nailed to the cross? Or are christians still expected to do the things that the "law" demands.

At that period of time women sat on one side of the synagogue and men on the other. Paul was saying it be better they asked questions of their husbands after the services to avoid interrupting. It doesn't really apply today, we don't have seating arrangements like that in a modern church.

"At that period of time"

" It doesn't really apply today"

Those same lines of reasoning can be used to excuse a number of other things.
So, what other biblical instructions don't apply today?

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


Yes, the law was fulfilled in Christ. Paul wasn't suggesting the women in that church be quiet to somehow fulfill some portion of the law for righteousness, he was trying to stop disruptive services. He probably heard via letter from that pastor that there was problems when people were asking questions back and forth in the middle of service. It was a practical statement, not doctrine. But today husbands and wives sit side by side, they can freely ask each other questions the whole time and not disrupt the service. Husbands at the time were seen as the spiritual leaders of the house, and Christianity was quite new to their wives and naturally they had a lot of Qs at first when it was still quite new.

And i said it doesn't apply today because generally husbands and wives don't sit on opposite sides of the synagogue.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

The "law" Paul was referring to would have been the same "law" that Paul said was nailed to the cross.

If the law was nailed to the cross, then so would be the part that requires women to remain silent. So there was no real need for Paul to refer to the law when he made that statement.

Are you aware that this makes no sense?
Why would Paul say "so says the law" referring to a law he just said was done away with?
Obviously there is no such law as you suggest, in the Old Testament, so he meant a rule, which is also one way to translate the Greek word Paul used.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by jmdewey60

 

There is no law, as in an actual spelled out law, in the Old Testament, that Paul would have been referring to. You could possibly take it to mean "the Law" in general, meaning the Torah, where there is the idea that women should be submissive to their husbands.

The "law" Paul was referring to would have been the same "law" that Paul said was nailed to the cross.

If the law was nailed to the cross, then so would be the part that requires women to remain silent. So there was no real need for Paul to refer to the law when he made that statement.

Hence my comment that he was being sarcastic. He was pretty acerbic and sarcastic in quite a few places... remember his response in Galatians to those who were browbeating Gentile Christians over circumcision?

As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves! (Galatians 5:12 NIV)

Maybe he knew something about Natural Selection, eh?

reply to post by adjensen


Not really that, he was mocking the idea that by cutting off some skin on their junk they became more righteous. He was being sarcastic saying basically, "cut the whole thing off and be really righteous". But I hear ya, I love that verse by Paul, he was quite flippant.

reply to post by jmdewey60

Why would Paul say "so says the law" referring to a law he just said was done away with?

That is exactly the problem!
We have Paul on record saying the law is done away with. And later gives an instruction and backs it up with the "law".

Of course, its not the only instance where he was being inconsistent.

Obviously there is no such law as you suggest, in the Old Testament, so he meant a rule, which is also one way to translate the Greek word Paul used.

You're right, the law in the OT don't call for women to remain silent... so its rather odd that Paul refers to the "law". If its only an error in translation error, and if Paul meant to say "rule", I'm curious to know where that rule came from... His own whims and fancies? Or was he referring to a set of rules which was seperate from the "law"?

reply to post by adjensen

Hence my comment that he was being sarcastic. He was pretty acerbic and sarcastic in quite a few places... remember his response in Galatians to those who were browbeating Gentile Christians over circumcision?

Was he also being sarcastic when he spoke against homosexuality?... which as you know, is prohibited by the OT law? Or was he just not too fond of homosexuals?

And Paul, despite feeling so strongly against circumcision, he circumcized a half jew, Timothy.
Strange guy.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
Was he also being sarcastic when he spoke against homosexuality?... which as you know, is prohibited by the OT law? Or was he just not too fond of homosexuals?

I think he was not fond of "sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another" (Romans 1:24 NIV) -- he was pretty consistent about that, across his writings.

And Paul, despite feeling so strongly against circumcision, he circumcized a half jew, Timothy. Strange guy.

From the passage, it's clear that a) Timothy is Jewish (there is no such thing as a "half Jew" -- if your mother is Jewish, you're Jewish, if she isn't, you're not, no matter what your father is,) and he did this to avoid conflict with other Jews, not because Timothy's salvation depended on it. Contrast with Titus, later, who was not Jewish, and thus could be presented, without offense to the Jews, as having the Holy Spirit in him, without being circumcised.

reply to post by adjensen

From the passage, it's clear that a) Timothy is Jewish (there is no such thing as a "half Jew" -- if your mother is Jewish, you're Jewish, if she isn't, you're not, no matter what your father is, and he did this to avoid conflict with other Jews, not because Timothy's salvation depended on it. ,

if your mother is Jewish, you're Jewish, if she isn't, you're not, no matter what your father is"

Interesting.

In that case....Since Timothys mother was Jewish,Timothy could have safely passed off as a jew.....so there would have been no conflict with the other Jews.... since Timothys mother was jewish.

Yet, Paul circumcized Timothy.

So.... did he go all the way and emasculate Timothy? You know, Galatians 5:12 and all?

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
In that case....Since Timothys mother was Jewish,Timothy could have safely passed off as a jew.....so there would have been no conflict with the other Jews.... since Timothys mother was jewish.

Yet, Paul circumcized Timothy.

Are you suggesting that Paul should have lied about the fact that Timothy was not circumcised? Surely you see the flaw with that.

This wasn't about Timothy's salvation, but about the reaction of Jews to a non-circumsized Jew in their midst. They may well have run off, tearing their clothes as they went -- I'm not even sure that I can think of an apt comparison, maybe a "Birther" who drives around with a "Vote Obama 2012" bumper sticker on his car, lol.

reply to post by adjensen

Are you suggesting that Paul should have lied about the fact that Timothy was not circumcised? Surely you see the flaw with that.

He didn't have to lie. He could have stuck by what he believed about circumcision.
You sure you don't see anything wrong with a man preaching one thing and practising another?

This wasn't about Timothy's salvation, but about the reaction of Jews to a non-circumsized Jew in their midst.

When Paul circumcized Timothy, it shows that Paul lacked conviction in his own statements against circumcision. This establishes as an appeaser, who was ready to even backtrack in his own belief and do the exact thing that he was preaching aganst.

Of course, thats no surprise.... considering Paul became as a jew, to the jew. (1 Corinthians 9:20)


Its funny how Paul claimed to have had visions from Jesus. But we know Jesus did NOT try and appease the jewish authorities or anybody. Instead he stood by what he preached and even challenged the jews at great risk to his life. I find it hard to believe that this same Jesus, the radical.... instructed Paul to "become as a jew to the jews".

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


I think that you're still missing the point. Where did Jesus ever say that Jews didn't need to be circumcised?

Paul's argument was whether Gentiles should be circumcised, not because of circumcision, but because the real argument was whether Gentiles had to become Jews in order to be Christians. The prevailing opinion among the Jewish Christian community was "yes" -- if you wanted to accept Christ, you needed to become Jewish, which for males, meant circumcision, and for all, meant living under the Law.

Paul rejected all of that, and used Titus as his example that God rejected it, as well. Timothy, being Jewish and not a Gentile, had nothing to do with that argument, and as I said before, Paul's action likely reflects the cultural atmosphere of the day more than anything theological.

reply to post by adjensen


Jews are only a small part of the Israelites. Since the Jews came back after captivity, that is why we associate Israel with Jews. The other tribes became Gentiles, and one purpose of the cross was reconciliation for the House of Israel. This is the mystery of the Gospel. Paul was not anti Torah, just easily misunderstood. The debt we owe of death to the Law was nailed to the cross, and our sins to it, not the Law.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


If you read Leviticus 19:27 in context you would realize that commandment is about mourning for the dead. Whether we are clean-shaven, or bearded is not the issue here. It is for mourning, and not to do such things for mourning. Same thing with stoning laws. Context is ultimately very very important. After all, the weightier matters of the Law, justice, mercy, and faith all prevail over capital punishment and legalism. Indeed, the Messiah if anything expanded on the Law, not did away with it.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n

That is exactly the problem!
We have Paul on record saying the law is done away with. And later gives an instruction and backs it up with the "law".

That was my mistake earlier. Although I would still object why would someone's writing not divinely inspired all the time would be put in the Bible and canonized... It's like putting your pastor's writing in the Bible and making it canon...

But Paul may be right in that case. Hear me out first.

Because in the New Covenant, the law is indeed done away with....

....Because the New Covenant believers don't need it anymore why??

In the New Covenant, the law will be written in the hearts and minds - but this is figuratively speaking...

...In actual manifestation of Spiritual rebirth, your nature changes. What you used to run after, you now despise. What you used to despise, you now run after.......That is even if no one has told you!!

I'll give an example: wolf vs sheep. A wolf loves meat and hate grass not because they are following a rule or law but that is their nature. Same with sheep, they love grass and hate meat because of their nature.

The process of Spiritual rebirth is similar. A wolf is reborn to a sheep which now hungers for the Bread of Life and now despises the flesh - things of this world.

In my case, I only speak of 'the law' or the manifestations of Spiritual rebirth as a test. I do not say these things to teach or to be followed.

They serve more as a question. Have you begun to love these and despise that? NO? You probably not been reborn yet. Keep seeking God!

reply to post by yahushuasaves


It has nothing to do with mourning, Leviticus 19 is the laws for holiness. There is no qualifying verse that says these are only for mourning. If you want to keep the law you must keep the whole thing man. I'd suggest staying with the determination of the apostles in Acts 15 if I was a Gentile, Christ's two commands under the New Covenant are much easier to keep. Read Acts 15 carefully again.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

I'd suggest staying with the determination of the apostles in Acts 15 if I was a Gentile, Christ's two commands under the New Covenant are much easier to keep. Read Acts 15 carefully again.

I think this was the biggest mistake by the apostles.

They were essentially bringing back the Old Covenant back to the Gentiles, rather, a watered-down version of the Old Covenant.

They were not Spirit-guided at this point.

Also since the 'Lost Sheep of the People of Israel' where scattered among all nations, among Gentiles, worshipping different Gods, they probably didn't know who they were....

....It would be prudent to preach the Gospel in full to the gentiles in hopes of finding the 'Lost Sheep' among the Gentiles.

Remember after the resurrection, Jesus asked Peter 3x to feed his sheep for Jesus know what's gonna happen. Jesus don't say this for nothing. Jesus behaved in the same manner when Peter was about to deny Christ.

Jesus did that for he knew something terrible is about to take place. The Gospel being corrupted which will lead to the Lost Sheep never found or starved of the 'Bread of Life'

The instruction of Jesus was to tell others, including the Gentiles "all the things he commanded them" Not one added, not less..... Even though you must preach to Gentiles, the end result was finding the lost.

Preach false 'Gospel for the Gentiles' the Lost Sheep starves.... Why did Jesus came? He came for the lost sheep of Israel...

Why did Jesus asked Peter take care of His Sheep 3x, because Peter may not do it right