Basic Standards

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

One issue is I see with those the don't wear jewelry siting Paul and Peter violate the same texts with adorning of apparel. Most all apostolics believe in adornment, there's only disagreement on what is viewed as adornment.

Adornment and ornamental are two different things.

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Originalist

And me not having General License with the UPCI now has nothing to do with this hair issue. Not all who hold General License agree with you. In fact, the UPCI really does not have an official stance. Furthermore, there are other Apostolic organizations who teach that Paul was referring to head coverings and not hair. My wife was raised in such an organization. I accept the fact that one can be Apostolic while holding differing views on this issue.

BTW, I don't believe the covering = hair thing. Paul was talking about an actual head covering over your head. Saying the covering was a reference to long hair is a stretch of the interpretation, IMO.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by coksiw

I follow the teachings of Jesus through the apostles writings. If he teaches to be meek, and wearing jewls for adornment is opposite to such attitude then I would follow that.

"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law." - Galatians 5:22-23 KJV

When did Jesus teach against all ornamental jewelry? The apostles affirmed that sin is a transgression of the Law. Where is ornamental jewelry listed as sin? Adorning oneself with jewels and ornamentally wearing great-granny's ornamental broach are two different things.

[Truthseeker]

Originally Posted by Originalist

Adornment and ornamental are two different things.

That's one way to try to fix it I guess, but Peter mentions all of it in the same context of "whose adorning "

[Truthseeker]

Originally Posted by coksiw

BTW, I don't believe the covering = hair thing. Paul was talking about an actual head covering over your head. Saying the covering was a reference to long hair is a stretch of the interpretation, IMO.

You're correct

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Originalist

When did Jesus teach against all ornamental jewelry? The apostles affirmed that sin is a transgression of the Law. Where is ornamental jewelry listed as sin? Adorning oneself with jewels and ornamentally wearing great-granny's ornamental broach are two different things.

Whatever the Apostles taught was Jesus taught them during the three years ministry, and what the Holy Spirit (in His name) revealed to them after Pentecost. Even if it is not in the Gospel writings.

""But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you." - John 14:26 NKJV

We are disciples of Jesus, through the writings of the Apostles, and his associates (Gospels and Epistles), and the leading of the Holy Spirit

[Truthseeker]

Originally Posted by coksiw

Whatever the Apostles taught was Jesus taught them during the three years ministry, and what the Holy Spirit (in His name) revealed to them after Pentecost. Even if it is not in the Gospel writings.

""But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you." - John 14:26 NKJV

We are disciples of Jesus, through the writings of the Apostles, and his associates (Gospels and Epistles), and the leading of the Holy Spirit

So it wasn't sin under the law but after Christ came and through the apostles it became sin?


I think the million dollar question is were the apostles really prohibiting adornment or teaching a principle about focusing on the inner vs the outward.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

That's one way to try to fix it I guess, but Peter mentions all of it in the same context of "whose adorning "

And that seems to prove my point. Ornamental jewelry in moderation is not a transgression of the Law.

[Truthseeker]

Originally Posted by Originalist

And that seems to prove my point. Ornamental jewelry in moderation is not a transgression of the Law.

I haven't come across it yet. Actually, what I read is verses that speak of it as signs of blessing and favor. Usually the narratives about removing them was related to when they were associated with false gods or a time of morning, both doesn't prove prohibition, IMO.

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

So it wasn't sin under the law but after Christ came and through the apostles it became sin?


I think the million dollar question is were the apostles really prohibiting adornment or teaching a principle about focusing on the inner vs the outward.

Originally Posted by Originalist

And that seems to prove my point. Ornamental jewelry in moderation is not a transgression of the Law.

What else do you both drop from the apostolic teachings because it is not explicit in the law? Are you OK with divorcing your wife for whatever reason?