Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 8/12/2005 7:44:39 AM EDT

Bible Dress code of modesty

Excellent sermon.

Shok
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 7:47:06 AM EDT

Originally Posted By QShok:
Bible Dress code of modesty

Excellent sermon.

Shok




tagged for later....
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 7:54:57 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/12/2005 7:55:30 AM EDT by TexasSIG]
Not sure what to say to that rant.

That's some pretty strict interpretation.

I'm always leary of people that do those kind of super strict interpretations of the
Bible without giving things a historical perspective.

There are no airplanes in the Bible, is it a sin to fly in one?

According to a strict interpretation, then America is a cursed country because we
give women the right to vote.

This guy also twists things to fit his argument. In one case he reminds us to keep in mind
the custom of the time for Jews to wear perfume and makeup, which tells us that the
time things were written DOES matter. Then later he tells us that the fashion and trends
of the times DO NOT matter, and only the strict interpretation of the Bible is allowed.


But, this being written by a Pentacostal preacher, twisting the scrupture around to
fit your argument is part of the deal I guess.......
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 8:01:17 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TexasSIG:
Not sure what to say to that rant.

That's some pretty strict interpretation.

I'm always leary of people that do those kind of super strict interpretations of the
Bible without giving things a historical perspective.

There are no airplanes in the Bible, is it a sin to fly in one?

According to a strict interpretation, then America is a cursed country because we
give women the right to vote.

This guy also twists things to fit his argument. In one case he reminds us to keep in mind
the custom of the time for Jews to wear perfume and makeup, which tells us that the
time things were written DOES matter. Then later he tells us that the fashion and trends
of the times DO NOT matter, and only the strict interpretation of the Bible is allowed.


But, this being written by a Pentacostal preacher, twisting the scrupture around to
fit your argument is part of the deal I guess.......



I disagree.


There are many cases in the Bible where a passage or command must be viewed in light of the practices of the day.

However, there are infinitely more examples where principles are laid down that never, ever, ever change.

'don't dress like a tramp' might be considered to be one of those never-changing principles.


As for your comment about pentecostals twisting scripture........I am not pentecostal. Having said that, I take offense at your painting with such a broad brush.

I cannot think of a single church that does not have some measure of incorrect or at least controversial doctrine.

Please, before you label all pentecostals as scripture-twisters, tell us what church you identify with, so we can assess what brand of scripture-twisting YOU subscribe to.......


Link Posted: 8/12/2005 8:06:21 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/12/2005 8:17:20 AM EDT by TexasSIG]

Originally Posted By arowneragain:


Please, before you label all pentecostals as scripture-twisters, tell us what church you identify with, so we can assess what brand of scripture-twisting YOU subscribe to.......





I subscribe to one that says be very careful when you take a single passage of scripture and attempt to
explain to others exactly what it's trying to say. You can put 40 people in a room and do that and you
will get 40 different answers.

When you quote the Bible, you need to read the entire chapter to put things in context.

You can twist individual phrases around to mean just about anything you please.

David showed his dick to people while he danced, so should we all do that when we dance for the Lord?

And, the article mentioned UPCI in particular, and that is the Pentacostal group I am calling BS on.

Here are the requirements to be a "Licensed" UPC minister. Notice not ordained, just licensed.


Local licensing is the first step in the process of licensing. All local license holders are entitled to...

1. A subscription to the Pentecostal Herald
2. A subscription to the Forward Magazine
3. Life insurance package
4. Perform funeral ceremonies

General licensing is the second phase in the licensing process. All general license holders have the following privileges...

1. A subscription to the Pentecostal Herald
2. A subscription to the Forward Magazine
3. Life insurance package
4. Perform funeral ceremonies
5. Perform wedding ceremonies
6. Perform practically all duties and responsibilities of the ministry

etc



Heck I think I'm gon' get me one of them licenses. I always wanted to be a preacher.......

Link Posted: 8/12/2005 8:12:23 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TexasSIG:

Originally Posted By arowneragain:


Please, before you label all pentecostals as scripture-twisters, tell us what church you identify with, so we can assess what brand of scripture-twisting YOU subscribe to.......





I subscribe to one that says be very careful when you take a single passage of scripture and attempt to
explain to others exactly what it's trying to say. You can put 40 people in a room and do that and you
will get 40 different answers.

When you quote the Bible, you need to read the entire chapter to put things in context.

You can twist individual phrases around to mean just about anything you please.

David showed his dick to people while he danced, so should we all do that when we dance for the Lord?




Cool!

I was wondering how you would dodge the question.


Now, explain for the crowd here exactly what your issue is with 'pentecostals', so we can put them on the 'TexasSIG says they're bad' list along with the catholics.

What is your specific problem with pentecostals, and how exactly does it pertain to this thread in particular?

Link Posted: 8/12/2005 8:17:54 AM EDT

Originally Posted By arowneragain:

What is your specific problem with pentecostals, and how exactly does it pertain to this thread in particular?




Go back and finish reading, I was cutting and pasting while you were ranting.....
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 8:21:11 AM EDT
Well, I've been thinking about adding some sack cloth and hair shirts to my wardrobe, and this clinches it for me.
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 8:22:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Rodent:
Well, I've been thinking about adding some sack cloth and hair shirts to my wardrobe, and this clinches it for me.




Yeah, I bet those will be BIG next year.

Link Posted: 8/12/2005 8:29:58 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TexasSIG:

Originally Posted By arowneragain:

What is your specific problem with pentecostals, and how exactly does it pertain to this thread in particular?




Go back and finish reading, I was cutting and pasting while you were ranting.....




You do realize that the UPCI is only one of many 'pentecoastal' churches, no?



I don't agree with all of their doctrine, for sure - especially their unitarian position.

Having said that, I honestly believe ....



<dons flamesuit>

that that particular position is more of a matter of semantics than it is a turn-the-world-on-its-ear doctrinal difference between it and the Trinitarian doctrine.


(I say 'God in 3 persons', they say '3 persons in 1 God'....to-may-to, to-mah-to)

But back on subject.......I don't agree with all of their positions on how women should dress.....but I certainly respect them, and believe that they are probably closer to 'correct' than other more 'mainline' denominations.

YMMV, of course.

Link Posted: 8/12/2005 8:35:22 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/12/2005 8:36:19 AM EDT by QShok]

Originally Posted By TexasSIG:
When you quote the Bible, you need to read the entire chapter to put things in context.





Perhaps we could that with this sermon also.


...One time a UPC preacher came to me and said that he wished that the Bible did not prohibit a woman from wearing makeup and jewelry because, "A lot of women in our church look terrible." I told this to a United Pentecostal preacher (a guy who had some common sense, because he agreed with me), that the Bible says the woman is not to adorn herself in these things. But the Bible also says the woman ought not to have power over her own body, but that it belongs to her husband. The Bible doesn't say that a man could not adorn his wife...


The author is unkown and says only a UPC preacher talked to him. The author talked to a United Pentecostal preacher who agreed with him (husbands can adorn their wives with jewelry). We have no idea if the preacher is Pentecostal but this sermon is on a Baptist website.

Shok
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 8:37:19 AM EDT

Originally Posted By QShok:

Originally Posted By TexasSIG:
When you quote the Bible, you need to read the entire chapter to put things in context.





Perhaps we could that with this sermon also.


...One time a UPC preacher came to me and said that he wished that the Bible did not prohibit a woman from wearing makeup and jewelry because, "A lot of women in our church look terrible." I told this to a United Pentecostal preacher (a guy who had some common sense, because he agreed with me), that the Bible says the woman is not to adorn herself in these things. But the Bible also says the woman ought not to have power over her own body, but that it belongs to her husband. The Bible doesn't say that a man could not adorn his wife...


The author is unkown and says only a UPC preacher talked to him. The author talked to a United Pentecostal preacher who agreed with him (husbands can adorn their wives with jewelry). We have no idea if the preacher is Pentecostal but this sermon is on a Baptist website.

Shok




if TexasSIG is a baptist, then we may just have the first 'owned' post of the religion forum.......
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 8:47:29 AM EDT

Originally Posted By arowneragain:



if TexasSIG is a baptist, then we may just have the first 'owned' post of the religion forum.......



Oh, I can assure you I am not a Baptist.

And, from looking at the website, I'm not sure how one would know that "mom of 9's place dot com"
is a Baptist web site.

The only denomination mentioned in the article was UPC, so that's all the evidence we have
of where the writer might have learned this stuff.

Once again, you can only go on what's written, be careful adding your own guesses.
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 9:35:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TexasSIG:

Originally Posted By arowneragain:



if TexasSIG is a baptist, then we may just have the first 'owned' post of the religion forum.......



Oh, I can assure you I am not a Baptist.

And, from looking at the website, I'm not sure how one would know that "mom of 9's place dot com"
is a Baptist web site.

The only denomination mentioned in the article was UPC, so that's all the evidence we have
of where the writer might have learned this stuff.

Once again, you can only go on what's written, be careful adding your own guesses.




What denomination DO you identif with?

I've seen you bash nearly every denomination, and even Christianity in general - for a while aI honestly thought you were one of the atheists.

What flavor are you?
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 10:04:05 AM EDT
After actually reading the sermon, I'm going to post my thoughts, and hopefully stay out of the other theme in this thread.

As to the Word, and how it pertains to this subject (MHO based on study) in context:

1. The Levitical (Dueteronomical?) proscriptions were to prevent cross-dressing / the appearance of homosexuality.
2. The Corinthian proscriptions were given to a group of Christians that had a problem with homosexuality and fornication / adultery running rampant in their community.
3. ALL the other references in the text are indications to dress "modestly".

My take:

1. Homosexuality is sin. The purposeful appearance of homosexuality is sin. A woman wearing modest slacks / pants does not nessesarily appear homosexual in today's culture, and therefore the act of wearing slacks / pants in and of itself is not a sin.

2. Homosexuality is sin. The purposeful appearance of homosexuality is sin. A man having long hair does not nessesarily appear homosexual in today's culture, and therefore the act of having long hair in and of itself is not a sin. Further evidence of this would be found by looking up "Nazarites" (just as an FYI).

3. Homosexuality is sin. The appearance of homosexuality is sin. A woman having short hair does not nessesarily appear homosexual in today's culture, and therefore the act of having short hair in and of itself is not a sin.

4. Neither a man nor a woman should attempt to provoke impure thoughts from the opposite sex. To do so would be a sin. Both sexes should therefore dress modestly, to avoid the problem. To dress immodestly in order to provoke that reaction would be a sin.

In short, I disagree with the "sermon" as written, but agree with the principals involved.
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 10:13:35 AM EDT

Originally Posted By arowneragain:


What denomination DO you identif with?

I've seen you bash nearly every denomination, and even Christianity in general - for a while aI honestly thought you were one of the atheists.

What flavor are you?



Started a new thread to avoid the hijack, and tried to make it interesting to more than me and you.
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 10:14:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By FMD:
After actually reading the sermon, I'm going to post my thoughts, and hopefully stay out of the other theme in this thread.

As to the Word, and how it pertains to this subject (MHO based on study) in context:

1. The Levitical (Dueteronomical?) proscriptions were to prevent cross-dressing / the appearance of homosexuality.
2. The Corinthian proscriptions were given to a group of Christians that had a problem with homosexuality and fornication / adultery running rampant in their community.
3. ALL the other references in the text are indications to dress "modestly".

My take:

1. Homosexuality is sin. The purposeful appearance of homosexuality is sin. A woman wearing modest slacks / pants does not nessesarily appear homosexual in today's culture, and therefore the act of wearing slacks / pants in and of itself is not a sin.

2. Homosexuality is sin. The purposeful appearance of homosexuality is sin. A man having long hair does not nessesarily appear homosexual in today's culture, and therefore the act of having long hair in and of itself is not a sin. Further evidence of this would be found by looking up "Nazarites" (just as an FYI).

3. Homosexuality is sin. The appearance of homosexuality is sin. A woman having short hair does not nessesarily appear homosexual in today's culture, and therefore the act of having short hair in and of itself is not a sin.

4. Neither a man nor a woman should attempt to provoke impure thoughts from the opposite sex. To do so would be a sin. Both sexes should therefore dress modestly, to avoid the problem. To dress immodestly in order to provoke that reaction would be a sin.

In short, I disagree with the "sermon" as written, but agree with the principals involved.




Very well put.
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 11:50:21 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TexasSIG:
Oh, I can assure you I am not a Baptist.

And, from looking at the website, I'm not sure how one would know that "mom of 9's place dot com"
is a Baptist web site.

The only denomination mentioned in the article was UPC, so that's all the evidence we have
of where the writer might have learned this stuff.

Once again, you can only go on what's written, be careful adding your own guesses.



There are two rediculous extremes extant in Pentecostal circles: Legalism and Lawlessness. The legalists believe that holiness is outward conduct, meaning what you wear, not playing cards, no drinking, etc. Legalists will focus on dress and matters of the such without recognition that gossip, lying, and such things are just as much sin as being drunk. They define sin as the stuff they don't like, and look in scripture for a reason to exclude people from their little holiness club. Everyone else, you see, is a traitor to God because they are not as "holy." Meanwhile they can harbor lust, malice, greed, hatred, envy and all sorts of evil in their heart and think they are righteous.

The lawless are the exact opposite. They believe that holiness is a purely internal thing, and seem perplexed at the idea that their faith shoud have any outward evidence whatsoever. God "understands" their behavior because He loves them, thus they are not accountable for anything.

Both are incorrect.

A woman is not a harlot because she wears makeup and jewelry. She is not holy because her hair is in a bun and her skirt touches the floor. A woman can have her hair in a bun, no makeup, and a skirt that reaches the floor but have a toxic tongue to match. She can be dressed like a nun and still have a spirit of seduction all over her.

Similarly, a truly holy woman will also not dress like a hooker. She will be decent in everything she says and does. In the Corinthian culture, the covered head of a woman symbolized her fidelity to her husband. The temple prostitutes, for instance, wore no such veils. Thus it was not Paul's contention that women should always have their heads covered, but it was Paul's contention that women of virtue ought to look the part.

That rule still applies.

The most important adornment of a woman is her internal goodness and Godly charachter. If she is truly Godly, that will manifest in her appearance. It is possible for a woman to be very attractive without looking like a hooker. Legalists think you are a hooker if you look attractive, and the lawless think you don't have to worry about how you look because God judges the "inside" of a person, apparently forgetting that faith without works is dead faith.



Link Posted: 8/12/2005 12:37:31 PM EDT

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:
There are two ridiculous extremes extant in Pentecostal Christian circles: Legalism and Lawlessness.



Only part I'd change, brother. Thank you for the response, I enjoyed reading it.

(NA if your conscience prefers).
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 12:43:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By FMD:

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:
There are two ridiculous extremes extant in Pentecostal Christian circles: Legalism and Lawlessness.



Only part I'd change, brother. Thank you for the response, I enjoyed reading it.

(NA if your conscience prefers).



It is certainly true that it is not an exclusively Pentecostal phenomenon. But since the P word came up, I felt obligated to give a response from a Pentecostal point of view.

BTW -- NA, please.

We don't believe in likker.

Link Posted: 8/12/2005 8:16:03 PM EDT
I see a business opportunity here - has anyone ever offered a line of Bible Fashions? WWJD panties, that sort of thing?
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 8:18:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:
BTW -- NA, please.

We don't believe in likker.




I Timothy 5:23
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 2:26:07 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 7:27:13 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Greenfeet:

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:
BTW -- NA, please.

We don't believe in likker.




I Timothy 5:23



I know, I know. Take a little wine.

Don't start THAT debate again.

My denomination doesn't necessarily teach that any consumption of alcohol is a mortal sin, but since alcohol leads to drunkenness and being drunk IS a sin, that alcohol ought to be avoided altogether. All in all, it isn't a bad idea.

Since I took an oath of membership to obey their doctrine and discipline, I will abide by the teachings. I took that oath because while I don't believe taking in alcohol itself is a sin, I do believe that I ought to avoid alcohol anyway at least for the sake of Christian witness.

Link Posted: 8/13/2005 9:52:59 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/13/2005 9:56:32 AM EDT by TheWind]

if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him"


Ok for you that are agreeing with the sermon, I was reading it and the above quote stood out. As in all the pictures representing Jesus I saw have him with long hair? I would appreciate if you could explain this to me.


But let me tell you, a lot of those girls wore some pretty tight dresses and skirts. You could see every curve on their body. Was that modest? No, because it didn't flow. If it flowed, it wouldn't show the figure.


And this one almost seems like he was paying too much attention, isn't this as bad as lusting?, especially since he was a student and the same age?
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 11:26:18 AM EDT
.
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 7:25:07 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/13/2005 7:34:36 PM EDT by MRW]
Link Posted: 8/15/2005 9:49:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TheWind:

if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him"


Ok for you that are agreeing with the sermon, I was reading it and the above quote stood out. As in all the pictures representing Jesus I saw have him with long hair? I would appreciate if you could explain this to me.



No one who ever saw Jesus ever painted a picture of him so we really don't know what he looks like. Jesus with long hair makes about as much sense as angels with wings. As far as I can remember Samson was the only one with long hair and, IMHO, Samson was the only man I know of that could glorify God with it.




But let me tell you, a lot of those girls wore some pretty tight dresses and skirts. You could see every curve on their body. Was that modest? No, because it didn't flow. If it flowed, it wouldn't show the figure.


And this one almost seems like he was paying too much attention, isn't this as bad as lusting?, especially since he was a student and the same age?



Going by what he wrote it doesn't sound like lust. Maybe the girls were a stubling block, we don't know.

Shok
Link Posted: 8/15/2005 2:02:53 PM EDT
What does the picture of Jesus look like in your church?
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 3:26:43 AM EDT
The little I read on that "Bible Dress code of modesty" seemed to be very controling from that preacher's point of view - and not in a healthy way.

I remember a comment from a Christian councelor on the subject of high divorce rates in extreme right-wing Christian marriages. While not applicable in all Christian marriages, the following paragraph and corresponding link brings up some legitimate concerns. It seems to make sense that too many try to use the Bible as a control tool - not something someone who "...loves his wife like his own body..." (from Eph. 5:28).

"Issues in the Christian MarriageExcerpted from Dr. Margaret Rinck's Christian Men Who Hate Women Chapter 4: Issues in the Christian Marriage Unique Manifestations of Misogyny in Christian Relationships
There are some unique expressions (of misogyny) within Christian homes, that result from distortions of Christian faith and theology. These distortions play into the already sick relationship, in many cases exacerbating it.Using the Bible as a Weapon
Christian misogynists (CMs) use the Bible as their main tool to control those around them.The evangelical faith does stress the importance of scripture; yet these men use it as a weapon to control and manipulate others. By quoting the Bible and referring to its authority, CMs have a seemingly foolproof weapon in their campaign to control their wives. Christian women also view scripture as their standard of behavior; so when their husbands use it to point out their failures, they are quick to succumb and condemn themselves. They end up feeling constantly condemned by their spouses, by scripture and by God.It never occurs to them to question their husbands' interpretation of scripture or to decide for themselves whether it is being used appropriately.
As we all know, scripture can and has been used to justify everything from slavery to the Holocaust.In the hands of a CM, we see a more subtle, but nonetheless serious distortion.
No Christian wants to be "out of God's will" or do something "Jesus wouldn't do;" so compliant, dutiful wives fall into line when CMs use these phrases whether or not it makes sense, feels right or seems healthy."

http://eaandfaith.blogspot.com/2005/04/issues-in-christian-marriages.html
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 1:02:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TheWind:
What does the picture of Jesus look like in your church?



Don't have a picture of Jesus in the church. Might be something in the kids sunday school papers and I bet Jesus has long hair too.

Shok
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 1:08:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/16/2005 1:11:43 PM EDT by WildBoar]

Originally Posted By TheWind:
What does the picture of Jesus look like in your church?



No images in my church.
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 1:09:38 PM EDT
Here is a question about dress.


Women covering their heads. Enforced in you church? Should it be?

Discuss.
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 4:22:22 PM EDT

Originally Posted By WildBoar:
Here is a question about dress.


Women covering their heads. Enforced in you church? Should it be?

Discuss.



No, and no.

Paul was speaking of a cultural tradition in the Corinthian church. (Prostitutes went around without their heads covered...) It is not a binding commandment on all churches in all times.
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 4:32:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:

Originally Posted By WildBoar:
Here is a question about dress.


Women covering their heads. Enforced in you church? Should it be?

Discuss.



No, and no.

Paul was speaking of a cultural tradition in the Corinthian church. (Prostitutes went around without their heads covered...) It is not a binding commandment on all churches in all times.



I agree but I have heard that some people still practice it.
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 5:26:02 PM EDT

Originally Posted By WildBoar:

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:

Originally Posted By WildBoar:
Here is a question about dress.


Women covering their heads. Enforced in you church? Should it be?

Discuss.



No, and no.

Paul was speaking of a cultural tradition in the Corinthian church. (Prostitutes went around without their heads covered...) It is not a binding commandment on all churches in all times.



I agree but I have heard that some people still practice it.



So, at the Anglican Church it was practiced up until the mid to late 1960's. It comes and goes
with female fashion I think, probably just as it did in those times. I still see it on some
of the older ladies, usually during the BIG events, Palm Sunday, Christmas, whatever.....
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 5:29:32 PM EDT

Originally Posted By QShok:
As far as I can remember Samson was the only one with long hair and, IMHO, Samson was the only man I know of that could glorify God with it.



Shok,

Nazarites (Who don't cut their hair; see Numbers 6) are found in the Bible in several places. Samson was a Nazarite, as was Samuel, and John the Baptist may also have been (Luke 7:33). Paul also took Nazarite vows on occaision (Acts 18:18 and 21:23-26).

The long hair was an obvious symbol of separation, and that separation indicated holiness (Num 6:8).

I would guess that is where the idea of Jesus having long hair comes from.
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 6:26:03 PM EDT

Originally Posted By FMD:

Originally Posted By QShok:
As far as I can remember Samson was the only one with long hair and, IMHO, Samson was the only man I know of that could glorify God with it.



Shok,

Nazarites (Who don't cut their hair; see Numbers 6) are found in the Bible in several places. Samson was a Nazarite, as was Samuel, and John the Baptist may also have been (Luke 7:33). Paul also took Nazarite vows on occaision (Acts 18:18 and 21:23-26).

The long hair was an obvious symbol of separation, and that separation indicated holiness (Num 6:8).

I would guess that is where the idea of Jesus having long hair comes from.



I do not believe Jesus was a Nazerite though. He touched the dead, touched wine and so forth. I am sure if He were a Nazerite scripture would have been clear.
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 6:28:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By WildBoar:

Originally Posted By FMD:
I would guess that is where the idea of Jesus having long hair comes from.



I do not believe Jesus was a Nazerite though. He touched the dead, touched wine and so forth. I am sure if He were a Nazerite scripture would have been clear.



Agreed. I didn't say it was a good idea!
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 6:34:00 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 7:04:31 PM EDT

Originally Posted By FMD:

Originally Posted By WildBoar:

Originally Posted By FMD:
I would guess that is where the idea of Jesus having long hair comes from.



I do not believe Jesus was a Nazerite though. He touched the dead, touched wine and so forth. I am sure if He were a Nazerite scripture would have been clear.



Agreed. I didn't say it was a good idea!



Sorry about that. DiDnt mean to infer that I thought your beleived it. There are some out there who do though.
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 9:48:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By QShok:
Jesus with long hair makes about as much sense as angels with wings. As far as I can remember Samson was the only one with long hair and, IMHO, Samson was the only man I know of that could glorify God with it.


Shok



Some angels in the Bible had wings, the seraphim with 3 pairs that touched Isaiah's lips with coals, and presumably the heavenly host that told the shepherds Jesus had been born. I guess it just depended on their specific mission.

I read down to the bottom of that sermon, where he said that the Bible says his wife belongs to him, she is his property, and that he owns her (Pwn3d, hee hee!). If I accepted that, I would be single the rest of my days because I doubt I could find a sweet young lady that would go for it.
Link Posted: 8/17/2005 3:48:34 AM EDT

Originally Posted By black_irish:

Originally Posted By QShok:
Jesus with long hair makes about as much sense as angels with wings. As far as I can remember Samson was the only one with long hair and, IMHO, Samson was the only man I know of that could glorify God with it.


Shok



Some angels in the Bible had wings, the seraphim with 3 pairs that touched Isaiah's lips with coals, and presumably the heavenly host that told the shepherds Jesus had been born. I guess it just depended on their specific mission.

I read down to the bottom of that sermon, where he said that the Bible says his wife belongs to him, she is his property, and that he owns her (Pwn3d, hee hee!). If I accepted that, I would be single the rest of my days because I doubt I could find a sweet young lady that would go for it.



The Bible says that the wife's body is not her own, but belongs to her husband. But it also says that the husband's body is not HIS own, but belongs to the wife.

The Bible teaches that the man IS head of the household, but his leadership (like all Christian leadership) is supposed to be one of love and service to his wife. Ditto her service to him.

The Bible gives no one license to become a domestic Hitler.

Link Posted: 8/17/2005 9:17:09 AM EDT
JW777, you are absolutely correct on all counts. Wives are to submit to their husbands (rare), and husbands are to love their wives as Christ loves the church (rarer still?).

Saying that my wife belongs to me ("I am my beloved's and He is mine") is not the same as saying that my wife is my property or that I own her. I am sure that the author of that sermon does not believe that he can treat his wife like chattel, but those were still careless words on his part.



Link Posted: 8/17/2005 11:40:42 AM EDT

Originally Posted By cmjohnson:

Clothes are a human invention.




    Gen 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.


Adam and Eve sewed fig leaves together but God clothed them and God has instructed us to be modest. At the very least that means covering our nakedness which goes beyond just consideration of comfort and protection.

Shok
Link Posted: 8/17/2005 11:46:57 AM EDT

Originally Posted By FMD:

Originally Posted By QShok:
As far as I can remember Samson was the only one with long hair and, IMHO, Samson was the only man I know of that could glorify God with it.



Shok,

Nazarites (Who don't cut their hair; see Numbers 6) are found in the Bible in several places. Samson was a Nazarite, as was Samuel, and John the Baptist may also have been (Luke 7:33). Paul also took Nazarite vows on occaision (Acts 18:18 and 21:23-26).

The long hair was an obvious symbol of separation, and that separation indicated holiness (Num 6:8).

I would guess that is where the idea of Jesus having long hair comes from.




Good post! I forgot about the Nazarites.

    Num 6:5 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.


Thanks!

Shok
Top Top