Bible Study Help the persecuted Christians!

[miamited]

Hi again WIP

Two thousand years ago being a widow could have been a death sentence.

Why do you believe that? You do realize that we're all under the condemnation of death... right? But seriously, I'm curious, because other than life just naturally being tougher then than it is for us today, I don't recall there being any particular issue of widows somehow being more subject to death, based solely on the fact that they are widows. Got some evidence to back that theory up?

Hi Christian888

The Bible clearly defines who is a Christian and who is not. The Bible can therefore be used to recognize true Christians. And of course I am in favor of helping everyone, but I am against calling people Christians who clearly break the commandments of Christ. They are not Christians.

I think that really stands on pretty shaky theology. I believe that even Paul had his moments of struggling with sin. According to his writing to us that he didn't always do what he was supposed to do. He, at the end, cries out, "who will save me from this body of death?"

But yes, I do agree that we can make some discernment as to some people's faith based on teachings given in the Scriptures. However, keep in mind that the word of God also says that we should help the one of little faith. So maybe that person you're condemning as not being a believer is still weak in their faith. I think God's word says that we should help them through encouragement and teaching rather than condemnation. God's word also says that each servant stands according to his master and that it isn't our job to judge that servant.

So, I'm just cautioning that we be very, very careful in trying to put ourselves in the place of God in determining who the faithful are. That's one of the sins of the RCC and those who promote the veneration of saints. The 'church' really doesn't have any idea whether or not anyone is going to be raised to eternal life. That's Jesus' job! We may think that someone is faithful enough and we may be proven right in the end, but we can't know the heart of another human being as God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit do.

Another of Jesus' cautions to us was that on that last day there are going to be 'many', not a 'few' who will be crying out to him for their salvation at the judgment. Proclaiming all of the really great things that they did in the name of Jesus. But Jesus tells them to depart from him that he didn't know them. Not that they didn't know him.

Now, I understand that passage is where you are drawing this idea that many christians won't be saved, and I agree with that. But I don't think it teaches that we are going to know who those are that will stand condemned by Jesus' words here.

God bless,
Ted

 

[WIP]

Giving money won't stop the persecution. I have been called every name in the book, and even some that were so dirty they went beyond the book. They make me smile.

When Josef made the statement, quoted below, that it made him smile to be called every name in the book, I'm hearing pride in that fact. I think we need to be careful about that.

Giving money won't stop the persecution. I have been called every name in the book, and even some that were so dirty they went beyond the book. They make me smile.

 

[WIP]

Why do you believe that? You do realize that we're all under the condemnation of death... right? But seriously, I'm curious, because other than life just naturally being tougher then than it is for us today, I don't recall there being any particular issue of widows somehow being more subject to death, based solely on the fact that they are widows. Got some evidence to back that theory up?

In today's society, women are not relinquished to be stay-at-home mothers. The primary role of women 2,000 years ago was to make babies. To them it was extremely important as we can read about it in Scripture how they were not looked upon with favor by themselves, men, or other women. They didn't have jobs outside the home. Today, particularly in the US, women in the workforce are a very common thing. Additionally, when a spouse dies, the living spouse will receive the deceased spouse's social security claim so when a spouse dies, it doesn't always leave them destitute as it most likely did 2,000 years ago. There are also other fail-safe social programs in place today available. Women are not owned or dependent on men as they were then. Being a widow today still leaves options open to them that were unheard of 2,000 years ago. Widows 2,000 years ago were often lucky to find a meal from day to day unless they moved into the late-night professions.

 

[miamited]

Hi WIP

Thanks for your reply. Yes, I understand that day to day life is different for everyone today than it was 2,000 years ago. Yes, financially our government has taken on the responsibility of trying to provide for the old. I think that's a worthy endeavor of a government. And yes, there was no such thing 2,000 years ago that any government plan would provide for the financial well-being of someone.

Being a widow today still leaves options open to them that were unheard of 2,000 years ago.

I agree. The times are different today than they were 2,000 years ago. My question deals mainly with this part:

Widows 2,000 years ago were often lucky to find a meal from day to day unless they moved into the late-night professions.

I'm just not convinced that families didn't take care of their elderly. Who carried the lame man to sit in front of the city gates to beg? And I'd really need to see some sort of evidence to support that widows were 'often lucky to find a meal' unless they became whores. And honestly, who wants a 70 year old whore? I don't have that picture in my mind as being a particularly big problem. What about the women living in nations that don't have the government sponsored financial support of old age income in today's world? Wouldn't they be living pretty much the same as the women 2,000 years ago?

Personally, I think we've just lost a lot of the understanding of just exactly 'how' older people and widows were taken care of 2,000 years ago. I'm just not convinced that it might be as dire as you seem to make it. So, I'm just asking for you to support some of your statements with evidence so I can change my worldview of 2,000 years ago.

God bless,
Ted

 

[WIP]

Hi WIP

Thanks for your reply. Yes, I understand that day to day life is different for everyone today than it was 2,000 years ago. Yes, financially our government has taken on the responsibility of trying to provide for the old. I think that's a worthy endeavor of a government. And yes, there was no such thing 2,000 years ago that any government plan would provide for the financial well-being of someone.


I agree. The times are different today than they were 2,000 years ago. My question deals mainly with this part:

I'm just not convinced that families didn't take care of their elderly. Who carried the lame man to sit in front of the city gates to beg? And I'd really need to see some sort of evidence to support that widows were 'often lucky to find a meal' unless they became whores. And honestly, who wants a 70 year old whore? I don't have that picture in my mind as being a particularly big problem. What about the women living in nations that don't have the government sponsored financial support of old age income in today's world? Wouldn't they be living pretty much the same as the women 2,000 years ago?

Personally, I think we've just lost a lot of the understanding of just exactly 'how' older people and widows were taken care of 2,000 years ago. I'm just not convinced that it might be as dire as you seem to make it. So, I'm just asking for you to support some of your statements with evidence so I can change my worldview of 2,000 years ago.

God bless,
Ted

My thought is that is why it is mentioned to take care of widows back then in the same breath as were the lame, sick, and poor. Why widows and not widowers?

 

[miamited]

My thought is that is why it is mentioned to take care of widows back then in the same breath as were the lame, sick, and poor. Why widows and not widowers?

Hi WIP

I can appreciate that. I rather imagine that as the world was generally male centered, as far as governing and making income, that widowers were expected to continue to be able to fend for themselves. I do also agree that widows likely had it tougher than they may today. But I recall the account of Naomi and she didn't have to turn to prostitution to provide for her sustenance until she died.

I'm just not sure that it was as bleak for widows as you seem to make it. But yes, Paul did encourage the church to help provide for widows. I'm sure that older women, now alone after the loss of their husband, did need some looking after and that's what Paul is encouraging. I just imagined that they had other resources to help them eat every day besides having to turn to prostitution. And seriously, I just have a real hard time seeing 60,70 80 year old women being desired in any way as a prostitute. I personally think they'd starve trying to be a prostitute, too.

My pictures is more of them doing menial chores to help out others. Going down to the river with someone's clothing to wash and being paid with a meal or some small amount of money. Taking care of their children's children and so forth. I think that family togetherness was more important then, than today. So when food was laid out at some family meal the widow was expected to join them.

I mean, today, with jets and trains and automobiles, families get separated by many, many miles. But my understanding of those days is that most people lived and died within 10 miles of where they were born. And please understand that I am referencing 'most'. Yes, I understand that there were world travelers in that day also. Paul is a perfect example. So there would most normally be some family to take care of them. After all, a woman who didn't have children was often considered cursed by God. Kind of like Hannah.

So, I fully agree that life was tougher then, than anything we have to deal with today. I'm just not sure it was as dire as you seem to make it to be... compared to the lives that people lived in those days. I mean everyone walked everywhere they went. A business was likely just a stall of some kind along a roadway. Sewing, I think, has always been work that older women could do. Anyway, it was just a curious question that I was wondering if you had any solid evidence to support what you were saying as relates to this specific issue.

God bless,
Ted

 

[Josef]

When Josef made the statement, quoted below, that it made him smile to be called every name in the book, I'm hearing pride in that fact. I think we need to be careful about that.

Hey All,
Chingjasmine, I smile, not out of pride, but rather that I am counted worthy of the persecution. Persecution does not take away our joy.
If I caused the perception of being prideful or boastful, I apologize. That was not my intention.

Thank you WIP for pointing this out.

Keep walking everybody.
May God bless,
Taz

 

[WIP]

Hey All,
Chingjasmine, I smile, not out of pride, but rather that I am counted worthy of the persecution. Persecution does not take away our joy.
If I caused the perception of being prideful or boastful, I apologize. That was not my intention.

Thank you WIP for pointing this out.

Keep walking everybody.
May God bless,
Taz

I like what you say here. I think Paul addressed this in Philippians 3:7-11 NKJV.

7 But what things were gain to me, these I have counted loss for Christ.
8 Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ
9 and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith;
10 that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death,
11 if, by any means, I may attain to the resurrection from the dead.

James also hit on this in his first chapter.
2 My brethren, count it all joy when you fall into various trials,
3 knowing that the testing of your faith produces patience.
4 But let patience have its perfect work, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking nothing.
James 1:2-4 NKJV

 

[WIP]

Hi WIP

I can appreciate that. I rather imagine that as the world was generally male centered, as far as governing and making income, that widowers were expected to continue to be able to fend for themselves. I do also agree that widows likely had it tougher than they may today. But I recall the account of Naomi and she didn't have to turn to prostitution to provide for her sustenance until she died.

I'm just not sure that it was as bleak for widows as you seem to make it. But yes, Paul did encourage the church to help provide for widows. I'm sure that older women, now alone after the loss of their husband, did need some looking after and that's what Paul is encouraging. I just imagined that they had other resources to help them eat every day besides having to turn to prostitution. And seriously, I just have a real hard time seeing 60,70 80 year old women being desired in any way as a prostitute. I personally think they'd starve trying to be a prostitute, too.

My pictures is more of them doing menial chores to help out others. Going down to the river with someone's clothing to wash and being paid with a meal or some small amount of money. Taking care of their children's children and so forth. I think that family togetherness was more important then, than today. So when food was laid out at some family meal the widow was expected to join them.

I mean, today, with jets and trains and automobiles, families get separated by many, many miles. But my understanding of those days is that most people lived and died within 10 miles of where they were born. And please understand that I am referencing 'most'. Yes, I understand that there were world travelers in that day also. Paul is a perfect example. So there would most normally be some family to take care of them. After all, a woman who didn't have children was often considered cursed by God. Kind of like Hannah.

So, I fully agree that life was tougher then, than anything we have to deal with today. I'm just not sure it was as dire as you seem to make it to be... compared to the lives that people lived in those days. I mean everyone walked everywhere they went. A business was likely just a stall of some kind along a roadway. Sewing, I think, has always been work that older women could do. Anyway, it was just a curious question that I was wondering if you had any solid evidence to support what you were saying as relates to this specific issue.

God bless,
Ted

I don't think I can dispute anything you wrote here. I think the bottom line is that we are all individually held responsible for helping any neighbor in need, whatever that need may be, and not just because they fit a certain social status. After all, I know a few widows that are far better off financially than I could ever hope to be, but, that does not mean they are not in need. They could be lonely, depressed, etc., and perhaps all too often ignored or forgotten.

 

[hishandmaiden]

It is always important to support one another for we are known by our love towards one another.