"Beards are sin!" False doctrine?

[Evang.Benincasa]

You bring this up considering the "offended" society we live in today???

The society we live in is your brother?

[Tithesmeister]

Apples and oranges. I don't need to break it down verse by verse because this isn't about the issue.

Brother, let me remind you that I QUOTED you!

If it is not about the issue, why did you bring it up? You were making an example of standards. YOU mentioned a dress code. Aquila contended that it should not be considered a dress code IIRC.

Allow me to remind you that you were justifying a dress code based on appearance (NOT MODESTY ALONE). The passage I quoted is about the appearance of the apparel and where they were seated according to their apparel. Allow me to drill down to the third verse . . .

And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, (BUSINESS CASUAL CLOTHING perhaps) and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; (PERHAPS ON THE PLATFORM?) and say to the poor, Stand thou there, (MAYBE ON THE BACK PEW, CERTAINLY NOT ON THE PLATFORM) or sit here under my footstool:

Are you not having respect for the man who wears the finer clothes and excluding the ones who are not dressed as nice?

I think it is obvious that you are and James calls it sin. If it was not relevant, as you told me, why then did YOU BRING IT UP?

Could we get some other opinions on this?

[n david]

And there is no Bible for it. You admitted it.
You're adding and taking out of context my post from yesterday.

My post was that if a minister claimed growing beards was a sin, it is not found in scripture and is wrong.

[JoeBandy]

The society we live in is your brother?

I hope so!

[Aquila]

You bring this up considering the "offended" society we live in today???

Offenses... they will come...

Luke 17:1-4
1 Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come!
2 It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.
3 Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him.
4 And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him.

These pastors should be forgiven for the offense they've caused. The truth is, they've sinned against us for no biblical reason through unjustified condemnation at worst, and at best by showing partiality. And sadly, they show no sign of being remorseful or repentant.

[Aquila]

You're adding and taking out of context my post from yesterday.

My post was that if a minister claimed growing beards was a sin, it is not found in scripture and is wrong.

Amen, such a position is clearly wrong.

And so, since we both agree that there is nothing sinful about a beard... on what biblical basis does a "platform policy" justify treating brothers who are guilty of no sin at all like they are second class citizens in the body?

[JoeBandy]

Offenses... they will come...

Luke 17:1-4
Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come!
2 It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.
3 Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him.
4 And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him.

While these pastors should be forgiven for the offense they've caused. The truth is, they've sinned against us for no biblical reason. And sadly, they show no sign of being remorseful or repentant.

Verse 2... little ones!!

[Aquila]

Verse 2... little ones!!

Verse 3, "If thy brother trespass against thee".

Offenses come to both young and old my dear brother.

[Evang.Benincasa]

I hope so!

There not, they actually hate (if you are a Christian) what you believe.
You actually would have to blend in with them so that they would see you as one of their own.

[n david]

Brother, let me remind you that I QUOTED you!
Yes, you quoted my experience drafting ministry/platform guidelines/expectations.

If it is not about the issue, why did you bring it up? You were making an example of standards. YOU mentioned a dress code. Aquila contended that it should not be considered a dress code IIRC.
My post was about more than just a dress code. It included conduct as well. Aquila stated Pastors need to have chapter and verse for these kind of things. I was showing him there are many things which don't include a chapter and verse, but are needful as guidelines/expectations for ministry.


I think it is obvious that you are and James calls it sin. If it was not relevant, as you told me, why then did YOU BRING IT UP?
First, I didn't bring up James, you did. I was showing Aquila an example of ministry/platform guidelines/expectations which included things which aren't found in chapter and verse.

Second, James is referencing Leviticus which is about attitudes towards poor vs rich. Showing favor to the rich over the poor is not the same as setting guidelines/expectations for those in ministry.

As I stated previously in a post to Aquila - using James out of context would require Pastors and churches to use anyone, including sinners, in ministry and on the platform. You would not be able to discriminate against anyone, using that logic.

[Evang.Benincasa]

No one cares what you think EB. You suffer from "toxic masculinity"!!!

Joe I don't care, that you don't care.

[houston]

Think I’ll just start my own church. Sickofthisstuff.

I’m taking a nap now...

[Evang.Benincasa]

Think I’ll just start my own church. Sickofthisstuff.

I’m taking a nap now...

Go get some good rest. :)

[Aquila]

Yes, you quoted my experience drafting ministry/platform guidelines/expectations.


My post was about more than just a dress code. It included conduct as well. Aquila stated Pastors need to have chapter and verse for these kind of things. I was showing him there are many things which don't include a chapter and verse, but are needful as guidelines/expectations for ministry.



First, I didn't bring up James, you did. I was showing Aquila an example of ministry/platform guidelines/expectations which included things which aren't found in chapter and verse.

Second, James is referencing Leviticus which is about attitudes towards poor vs rich. Showing favor to the rich over the poor is not the same as setting guidelines/expectations for those in ministry.

As I stated previously in a post to Aquila - using James out of context would require Pastors and churches to use anyone, including sinners, in ministry and on the platform. You would not be able to discriminate against anyone, using that logic.

So, if a pastor doesn't have a platform policy forbidding beards, he has to allow anyone on the platform, including sinners???

[n david]

And so, since we both agree that there is nothing sinful about a beard... on what biblical basis does a "platform policy" justify treating brothers who are guilty of no sin at all like they are second class citizens in the body?

There's no biblical basis for excluding Jim BillyBob Johnson if he wants to wear ripped jeans or shorts and flip flops, but we did.

There's no biblical basis for telling JB Johnson he can't wear a multi-colored mohawk, but we did.

There's no biblical basis for requiring daily prayer and devotion, with weekly accountability; nor for requiring them to fast one day a week. But we did.

There's no biblical basis for requiring men to wear dress slacks and a polo or dress shirt; nor for women to wear a dress/skirt and modest blouse. But we did.

There's no biblical basis for prohibiting a necklace, bracelet or any ring other than a wedding ring. But we did.

It's not about being treated as "second class" citizens. Stop with the politically liberal thinking.

[Aquila]

I think we should look closely at James 2...

James 2:1-9 King James Version (KJV)
1 My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.
2 For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment;
3 And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool:
4 Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?
5 Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?
6 But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats?
7 Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called?
8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:
9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.


The verses in Red are the point that James is making. The verses in green are the example he gives, showing partiality to the wealthy. But he ends by explaining that showing partiality in and of itself, for any reason, isn't loving your neighbor as yourself. And so, if we have respect of persons (favoritism), we commit sin, because we violate the law of loving our neighbor as ourselves.

[Aquila]

There's no biblical basis for excluding Jim BillyBob Johnson if he wants to wear ripped jeans or shorts and flip flops, but we did.

There's no biblical basis for telling JB Johnson he can't wear a multi-colored mohawk, but we did.

There's no biblical basis for requiring daily prayer and devotion, with weekly accountability; nor for requiring them to fast one day a week. But we did.

There's no biblical basis for requiring men to wear dress slacks and a polo or dress shirt; nor for women to wear a dress/skirt and modest blouse. But we did.

There's no biblical basis for prohibiting a necklace, bracelet or any ring other than a wedding ring. But we did.

It's not about being treated as "second class" citizens. Stop with the politically liberal thinking.

So, because we wear beards... we're classified along with those who:

- dress sloppy
- those who have multi-colored Mohawks
- those who neglect prayer
- those neglect fasting
- those who dress immodestly
- those who wear excessive jewelry

Is that what you're saying???

Wow. I can feel the love. lol

[Aquila]

There's no biblical basis for excluding Jim BillyBob Johnson if he wants to wear ripped jeans or shorts and flip flops, but we did.

There's no biblical basis for telling JB Johnson he can't wear a multi-colored mohawk, but we did.

There's no biblical basis for requiring daily prayer and devotion, with weekly accountability; nor for requiring them to fast one day a week. But we did.

There's no biblical basis for requiring men to wear dress slacks and a polo or dress shirt; nor for women to wear a dress/skirt and modest blouse. But we did.

There's no biblical basis for prohibiting a necklace, bracelet or any ring other than a wedding ring. But we did.

It's not about being treated as "second class" citizens. Stop with the politically liberal thinking.

I can find Bible for nearly everything above. But I can't find Scripture even remotely prohibiting beards.

[JoeBandy]

There's no biblical basis for excluding Jim BillyBob Johnson if he wants to wear ripped jeans or shorts and flip flops, but we did.

There's no biblical basis for telling JB Johnson he can't wear a multi-colored mohawk, but we did.

There's no biblical basis for requiring daily prayer and devotion, with weekly accountability; nor for requiring them to fast one day a week. But we did.

There's no biblical basis for requiring men to wear dress slacks and a polo or dress shirt; nor for women to wear a dress/skirt and modest blouse. But we did.

There's no biblical basis for prohibiting a necklace, bracelet or any ring other than a wedding ring. But we did.

It's not about being treated as "second class" citizens. Stop with the politically liberal thinking.

HMMMM Five sentences of "platform regulation"! Four of these sentences are appearances and easily regulated. How do you regulate the daily prayer and devotion and fasting thing??

[Aquila]

Imagine if a pastor arbitrarily required men to wear beards in order to serve on the platform, or be used in Sunday school, to praise sing, to sing in the choir, or to participate in other ministries of the church... and you were shut out for preferring to be shaven. Yet, they were more than willing to take your money to help build, maintain, and equip that very platform. And when you asked if being shaven was wrong, they admitted that it wasn't a sin and that there is no Scripture prohibiting shaven men from serving in ministry. Yet, when you asked if you could participate, serve the body, and offer God your gifts... they said that your face was against "policy".

I wear a beard, and that would make me equally upset because I know good men who are shaven. To see them arbitrarily shut out like that would make me rather indignant. Because you smoothies have just as much to offer as we bearded ones.

[Aquila]

HMMMM Five sentences of "platform regulation"! Four of these sentences are appearances and easily regulated. How do you regulate the daily prayer and devotion and fasting thing??

The church I was raised in had accountability partners. You'd connect and pray together, and at established times you'd fast together. It wasn't too bad. But looking back, it's a bit draconian. lol

[n david]

So, if a pastor doesn't have a platform policy forbidding beards, he has to allow anyone on the platform, including sinners???
You're not understanding.

You want to use James and say that Pastor's shouldn't discriminate against men with beards (even though that's not what the context is, but whatever). I'm saying why stop with beards??? I know you want it to apply to just beards, but you can't just arbitrarily stop there using your logic.

[n david]

I can find Bible for nearly everything above. But I can't find Scripture even remotely prohibiting beards.

Prove it.

[n david]

HMMMM Five sentences of "platform regulation"! Four of these sentences are appearances and easily regulated. How do you regulate the daily prayer and devotion and fasting thing??
The policy I'm referring to was more than the example I gave in that post.

[Aquila]

You're not understanding.

You want to use James and say that Pastor's shouldn't discriminate against men with beards (even though that's not what the context is, but whatever). I'm saying why stop with beards??? I know you want it to apply to just beards, but you can't just arbitrarily stop there using your logic.

Wasn't your case that a pastor could start and stop wherever he wanted on platform standards???

Is Jesus allowed on your platform?

[n david]

So, because we wear beards... we're classified along with those who:

- dress sloppy
- those who have multi-colored Mohawks
- those who neglect prayer
- those neglect fasting
- those who dress immodestly
- those who wear excessive jewelry

Is that what you're saying???

Wow. I can feel the love. lol
First, the example I gave had no prohibition against beards. None. That Pastor and church allowed men with facial hair in ministry and on the platform.

Second, stop trying to twist and add to what I'm saying.

[JoeBandy]

What is the definition of a beard in the context of this discussion?

[n david]

Wasn't your case that a pastor could start and stop wherever he wanted on platform standards???
My statement was that some things don't have chapter and verse. You're the one saying that having guideliness/expectations for ministry/platform is discrimination and trying to use James to claim we shouldn't discriminate against anyone.

Where do you draw the line? Should we have any guidelines or expectations for ministry or those who serve on the platform? Or do we just allow anyone and everyone?

Is Jesus allowed on your platform?
You're assuming Jesus would be wearing the same clothes from Biblical times.

[Michael The Disciple]

Imagine if a pastor arbitrarily required men to wear beards in order to serve on the platform, or be used in Sunday school, to praise sing, to sing in the choir, or to participate in other ministries of the church... and you were shut out for preferring to be shaven. Yet, they were more than willing to take your money to help build, maintain, and equip that very platform. And when you asked if being shaven was wrong, they admitted that it wasn't a sin and that there is no Scripture prohibiting shaven men from serving in ministry. Yet, when you asked if you could participate, serve the body, and offer God your gifts... they said that your face was against "policy".

I wear a beard, and that would make me equally upset because I know good men who are shaven. To see them arbitrarily shut out like that would make me rather indignant. Because you smoothies have just as much to offer as we bearded ones.

You are excelling on this thread.

[Aquila]

Prove it.

Well, we have...

Principles that can address the following:

- Multi-Colored Mohawks (extremes of hair style)
- Excessive Jewelry
- Immodest attire

“What? know ye not that your body is the temple
of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of
God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with
a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in
your spirit, which are God’s” (I Corinthians 6:19-20).

“Be not conformed to this world” (Romans 12:2).

“Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning
of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of
putting on of apparel; but let it be the hidden man of
the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the
ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the
sight of God of great price. For after this manner in
the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God
adorned themselves” (I Peter 3:3-5).

“Not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly
array” (I Timothy 2:9).

Principles that can address the following:

- those who lack a prayer life
- those who do not fast

“When thou doest alms. . . . When ye pray. . . .
When ye fast . . .” (Matthew 6:3, 7, 16).

“Praying always with all prayer and supplication
in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance
and supplication for all saints” (Ephesians
6:18).

“Rejoice evermore. Pray without ceasing. In every
thing give thanks. . . . Quench not the Spirit. Despise
not prophesyings. Prove all things; hold fast that
which is good” (I Thessalonians 5:16-21).

I can't find anything against wearing a beard or being a sloppy dresser. lol

[Aquila]

First, the example I gave had no prohibition against beards. None. That Pastor and church allowed men with facial hair in ministry and on the platform.

Second, stop trying to twist and add to what I'm saying.

Your point was that there were no scriptures to justify the prohibitions listed, so one doesn't need scripture to prohibit wearing a beard, am I right?

And by illustrating that, you essentially lumped men who wear beards in with all those you described.

[derAlte]

I wonder what it was like for Joshua after his elevation to the leadership of Israel after the death of Moses. Joshua, not being Moses, undoubtedly exercised a different leadership style than his predecessor. I’m almost positive that as time went by and as he became surer of himself as a leader, folks in the congregation began to complain about how he was doing things.

“Moses never did things this way,” I can hear them muttering. “We’re leaving the old paths.”

Moses had been the leader of Israel for 40 years when he died. He was the only leader they had ever known and folks were used to his way of doing things. But Joshua was a leader called by God for new times in order to lead Israel into places they had never been before. Joshua was to take a transitory people and turn them into a sedentary people.

Never did Joshua desire to stray from the eternal Word of Jehovah given to Moses. I can’t help but guess that perhaps some of the older people in the camp, with a fondness for Moses’ habits had a hard time separating these habits and opinions of the man Moses from the God-breathed commandments received on Sinai. And after he died, perhaps some of these folks, whose eyes were focused backward may have figuratively joined Satan as he disputed about the body of Moses.

As I age, and as I observe those around me age, I perceive that in myself and in many others, a certain reaction to change. It seems to be an attitude of disapproval over the new generation. I also perceive in some of my contemporaries the same failure to separate past ways of operating that were created in reaction to past circumstances, from the eternal Word of God. I think there are many older men and women today who would prefer that we preserve the Pentecost of the 1950s, with its flattops and buzzcuts on men, clean-shaven faces, white long-sleeved shirts, bow-ties, women’s hose with seams, beehive hairdos, and a certain fierce and mean demeanor trying to see who can out-ugly one another while contending for the truth.

I don’t know why Satan would want the dead body of the prophet. Perhaps he wanted to use it as a focal point for idolatry by getting men’s eyes off the God of Moses and the message of Moses and onto the corpse of Moses. I fear that, subconsciously, the folks who are desperately trying to turn back the clock and preserve a lost world, are doing the same thing as Satan by disputing about the dead body of 1950’s Pentecost and by doing so, are enshrining a lost, dead world, instead of the still-Living God of that dead, lost world.

God does not change. Times do change. How we apply the eternal truths of holiness and separation will change depending upon the challenges of the current generation. But the eternal message of Jesus Christ, that God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son remains the same. There is only One God and we are to be saved through the New Birth. God wants a separated people who define their separation and all other matters by His eternal Word. He wants us to love one another. That will never change.

[Aquila]

You are excelling on this thread.

I'm just seeing the partiality.

They say it isn't a sin.

They admit there is no Scripture that remotely speaks of beards in a negative light.

And yet... they believe that policies discriminating against brothers (brothers!) with a beard is just A-Okay. Oh, but they don't dare say those brothers are in sin over the beard, and so they have no issue with bearded brothers attending, giving money, and filling the pews, but God forbid that brother wish to sing in the choir.

Like I said, I'm surprised they don't make us drink from separate water fountains.

[Tithesmeister]

First, I didn't bring up James, you did. This is true. In response to your platform standards that there is no chapter and verse for. My position is that there is chapter and verse against what you are doing. You believe I am taking the scripture out of context? It sure doesn't seem that way to me. I was showing Aquila an example of ministry/platform guidelines/expectations which included things which aren't found in chapter and verse.

It seems to me that your argument is "that because we do it this way, it is okay".

Second, James is referencing Leviticus which is about attitudes towards poor vs rich. Showing favor to the rich over the poor is not the same as setting guidelines/expectations for those in ministry.

Brother, it sure sounds incredibly similar to me, and seemingly to Aquila. While you say that it is a respecting rich versus poor issue, the passage very specifically mentions clothing and the quality of that clothing in regard to where they are allowed to sit. This is exactly what you did in your platform standards list that you have admitted that you have no scripture to support. Then you claimed that it had no relevance, did you not?

I'm going to proceed carefully here, because if I provoke you to anger, my experience tells me that your ears will close. I would rather, for myself, assume that all scripture is for me. Obviously it may not apply to the current discussion, but I think it is dangerous to assume that a situation with so many similarities does not apply. Please accept it in the spirit it is intended.

As I stated previously in a post to Aquila - using James out of context? would require Pastors and churches to use anyone, including sinners, in ministry and on the platform. You would not be able to discriminate against anyone, using that logic.


Brother, with all due respect, in my opinion, this is EXACTLY the context that James is speaking of. It seems that you are putting up the straw man argument that Aquila, and now I, am saying that you should allow prostitutes and drunkards to lead service. Where did that show up in the passage I quoted? James is very articulate in delivering his message. It has NOTHING to do with the morals of the people who are being favored or discriminated against, he is talking about the sins of the church leaders. Meanwhile you pretend that it has nothing to do with you, while simultaneously affirming that you have the discretion to influence who sits in the "good place". Please do not pretend that this is irrelevant. Instead let me urge you to rightly divide the word and strive to understand how it could be applied to your situation. I believe if you look for the way, you will find it. I also believe if you want to believe it does not apply to you, and that it is out of context, you will be able to find that as well.

I am moving on. Hopefully you are not thinking that I am trying to hurt you. I believe that my intentions are good and I hope you can see it that way.

God bless you my brother, in Jesus name.

[Aquila]

I wonder what it was like for Joshua after his elevation to the leadership of Israel after the death of Moses. Joshua, not being Moses, undoubtedly exercised a different leadership style than his predecessor. I’m almost positive that as time went by and as he became surer of himself as a leader, folks in the congregation began to complain about how he was doing things.

“Moses never did things this way,” I can hear them muttering. “We’re leaving the old paths.”

Moses had been the leader of Israel for 40 years when he died. He was the only leader they had ever known and folks were used to his way of doing things. But Joshua was a leader called by God for new times in order to lead Israel into places they had never been before. Joshua was to take a transitory people and turn them into a sedentary people.

Never did Joshua desire to stray from the eternal Word of Jehovah given to Moses. I can’t help but guess that perhaps some of the older people in the camp, with a fondness for Moses’ habits had a hard time separating these habits and opinions of the man Moses from the God-breathed commandments received on Sinai. And after he died, perhaps some of these folks, whose eyes were focused backward may have figuratively joined Satan as he disputed about the body of Moses.

As I age, and as I observe those around me age, I perceive that in myself and in many others, a certain reaction to change. It seems to be an attitude of disapproval over the new generation. I also perceive in some of my contemporaries the same failure to separate past ways of operating that were created in reaction to past circumstances, from the eternal Word of God. I think there are many older men and women today who would prefer that we preserve the Pentecost of the 1950s, with its flattops and buzzcuts on men, clean-shaven faces, white long-sleeved shirts, bow-ties, women’s hose with seams, beehive hairdos, and a certain fierce and mean demeanor trying to see who can out-ugly one another while contending for the truth.

I don’t know why Satan would want the dead body of the prophet. Perhaps he wanted to use it as a focal point for idolatry by getting men’s eyes off the God of Moses and the message of Moses and onto the corpse of Moses. I fear that, subconsciously, the folks who are desperately trying to turn back the clock and preserve a lost world, are doing the same thing as Satan by disputing about the dead body of 1950’s Pentecost and by doing so, are enshrining a lost, dead world, instead of the still-Living God of that dead, lost world.

God does not change. Times do change. How we apply the eternal truths of holiness and separation will change depending upon the challenges of the current generation. But the eternal message of Jesus Christ, that God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son remains the same. There is only One God and we are to be saved through the New Birth. God wants a separated people who define their separation and all other matters by His eternal Word. He wants us to love one another. That will never change.

Amen.

[Aquila]

I have a dream that my children will one day attend a church where they will not be judged by the amount of hair on their faces, but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today!

:lol

[aegsm76]

I have a dream that my children will one day attend a church where they will not be judged by the amount of hair on their faces, but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today!

:lol

A - I notice you did not say "sons" but "children".
So, you would have no problem with a female saint with a beard on the platform.
Now, seriously, the only thing this entire thread is showing is that you and a few others have some issues with wanting to show how much you are persecuted by evil pastors.
If I remember correctly, at the beginning of this thread you even called Bro Epley a liar, basically, for saying that he had never heard of someone calling a beard a sin.
So, whatever...

[Michael The Disciple]

Someone address this please.

A Pastor looks out at a sinful world. He notices that certain men wear suits. He notices that Politicians who are known for lying, CIA agents known for political assasinations and deception, Wall Street traders known for greed, and last but not least HOLLYWOOD ACTORS, famous for fornication and other sins all have this in common. They wear suits!

He reasons since various types (not just one as in hippies) of sinners wear suits we must forbid our people from wearing suits.

Would he be justified?

[Aquila]

A - I notice you did not say "sons" but "children".
So, you would have no problem with a female saint with a beard on the platform.

Are you saying you'd judge a woman based on her facial hair or lack thereof over the content of her character?

Now, seriously, the only thing this entire thread is showing is that you and a few others have some issues with wanting to show how much you are persecuted by evil pastors.

Nope. I wanted to know if teaching that a beard is "sin" was a false doctrine. That was firmly established by all parties involved. But then it evolved. If a beard isn't a "sin".... then why treat men with beards like second class citizens in the Kingdom of God?

If I remember correctly, at the beginning of this thread MTD even called Bro Epley a "liar" for saying that he had never heard of someone calling a beard a sin.
So, whatever...

I think we've all heard men say, or insinuate, that growing a beard was sin on account of it representing hippies and "rebellion", or on account of being in violation of pastoral edict on standards. If you haven't, I evidently came up in a far more conservative church than y'all did.

[Aquila]

Someone address this please.

A Pastor looks put at a sinful world. He notices that certain men wear suits. He notices that Politicians who are known for lying, CIA agents known for political assasinations and deception, Wall Street traders known for greed, and last but not least HOLLYWOOD ACTORS, famous for fornication and other sins all have this in common. They wear suits!

He reasons since various types (not just one as in hippies) of sinners wear suits we must forbid our people from wearing suits.

Would he be justified?

Nope. I'd say he needs a Xanax.

[n david]

Brother, with all due respect, in my opinion, this is EXACTLY the context that James is speaking of. It seems that you are putting up the straw man argument that Aquila, and now I, am saying that you should allow prostitutes and drunkards to lead service. Where did that show up in the passage I quoted? James is very articulate in delivering his message. It has NOTHING to do with the morals of the people who are being favored or discriminated against, he is talking about the sins of the church leaders.
Okay, I'll play your game. I won't call them drunkards or whores. James' writing only says a rich man and poor man came into the assembly. He didn't say they were brothers or fellow christians, just a rich man and a poor man. From the writing, it would not be wrong to assume these were secular and unsaved men.

So the issue remains. To use James' words and say there should be no discrimination, no guidelines for those used in ministry -- where do you draw the line?

[n david]

Like I said, I'm surprised they don't make us drink from separate water fountains.

You poor man. :violin

[Aquila]

I knew a guy at the Lighthouse who had issues with shaving. It always broke him out. He tried moisturizers, creams, etc. and it just didn't work. It looked painful. And when it would really get going, you could tell that it bled that morning when he saved.

When I was in the military, such a man received a profile to allow him to go without shaving. Not in the army of God. He was expected to shave no matter what.

Someone should have said, "Brother, look, that looks painful. This is your face we're talking about. Don't worry about growing it out. Let it grow." But nope. I think that's not only silly, but boarders on abuse.

And sadly, some churches might embrace him growing it out in the congregation, but due to his skin condition and sensitivity to shaving, he'd be bared from singing in the choir, playing the drums, etc.

It's just there is no BIBLE for it.

[Aquila]

You poor man. :violin

The only poor men are those who don't have the guts to make holy hamburger out of sacred cows and kick aside the doctrines of men. When it comes to being Apostolic... if an Apostolic man has a beard... you know he ain't no sniveling man pleaser who licks his pastor's boots every time he gives an arbitrary and unbiblical edict. You can also bet if he's older, he's been mocked, berated, condemned, shown the seat, and chided about needing to shave half the time he's graced the doors of a church.

We need to get back to the Bible.

[Aquila]

Okay, I'll play your game. I won't call them drunkards or whores. James' writing only says a rich man and poor man came into the assembly. He didn't say they were brothers or fellow christians, just a rich man and a poor man. From the writing, it would not be wrong to assume these were secular and unsaved men.

So the issue remains. To use James' words and say there should be no discrimination, no guidelines for those used in ministry -- where do you draw the line?

While James gave an example of partiality towards the rich... he sums up his point in a more general fashion:

James 2:8-9 King James Version (KJV)
8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:
9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.

He didn't say, "respect of rich persons". He said, "respect of persons". Meaning, if you show partiality and favoritism, you're not loving your neighbor as yourself. And so, you've sinned, because you've broken this law. You can flip it, if favoritism is shown towards the poor over the wealthy, white over black, free over bond, Greek over Jew, smoothie over bearded.... you've sinned by not loving your neighbor as yourself.

The point is, don't show partiality by arbitrary preference and favoritism.

[JoeBandy]

Someone please answer my question. What is the definition of a beard within the context of this discussion???

[Aquila]

Someone please answer my question. What is the definition of a beard within the context of this discussion???

Why do you ask? A beard is a beard. :smack

[JoeBandy]

Why do you ask? A beard is a beard. :smack

So 5 oclock shadow is a beard or not? What is the length requirement for it to be considered a beard. Is there a shaving schedule to adhere to?

[Amanah]

I was searching to see if there were any Pentecostal churches that supported beards and I came across this site and thought our rebels might like it, not that I want to encourage revolt.

Join us in the Revolution!!
July 31, 2017

Bible Beard

If you are tired of skinny pants, divorce and remarriage (adultery), TV, Hollywood, immodest clothing on women, spineless preachers who refuse to preach the plain truth, then join us in the Revolution and grow a Bible Beard to protest sin in Pentecost.

Take pictures of your progress each month. A page will be created showing the picture progress of the Revolution. Also, coming soon a new page on grooming your beard.

By definition a Bible Beard is one that grows naturally. Goatees, mustaches, chin straps, manicured beards are NOT a definition a Bible Beard, but natural beards like Jesus, the Apostles and the patriarchs had. (All of them).

https://www.biblebeard.org/single-post/2017/07/31/Join-us-in-the-Revolution

[Michael The Disciple]

So 5 oclock shadow is a beard or not? What is the length requirement for it to be considered a beard. Is there a shaving schedule to adhere to?

When I was preaching in an Apostolic Church once 34 years ago I was driving to Church one night. Halfway there I remembered I had not shaved for a few days. I panicked. I had a cousin living nearby so I went to her house and used her razor to shave.

[Truthseeker]

Isn't clean shaved a modern CULTural thing? :)

[Amanah]

Bible Beard is an Apostolic

Standard Apostolic Orthodoxy with a Twist
August 4, 2017
Bible Beard

We believe the Gospel: The death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

We believe that in obeying the Gospel you must follow Peter’s command in Acts 2:38

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost [When you receive the Holy Ghost you will speak in tongues]

We believe there is One God and His name is Jesus.

We believe you must continue in the Apostles doctrine and live a holy life unto the Lord.

The TWIST is we enforce this Truth!

https://www.biblebeard.org/single-post/2017/08/04/Standard-Apostolic-Orthodoxy-with-a-Twist

[n david]

The only poor men are those who don't have the guts to make holy hamburger out of sacred cows and kick aside the doctrines of men. When it comes to being Apostolic... if an Apostolic man has a beard... you know he ain't no sniveling man pleaser who licks his pastor's boots every time he gives an arbitrary and unbiblical edict. You can also bet if he's older, he's been mocked, berated, condemned, shown the seat, and chided about needing to shave half the time he's graced the doors of a church.

We need to get back to the Bible.

You haven't answered a question I've asked:

Where do you draw the line, using your view of James' writings? He's speaking of two unsaved men. You claim it shows that there shouldn't be any discrimination. You say it's wrong to have guidelines and expectations for those who wish to be used in ministry and on the platform.

So where do you draw the line?

[Tithesmeister]

Okay, I'll play your game. I won't call them drunkards or whores. James' writing only says a rich man and poor man came into the assembly. He didn't say they were brothers or fellow christians, just a rich man and a poor man. From the writing, it would not be wrong to assume these were secular and unsaved men.

So the issue remains. To use James' words and say there should be no discrimination, no guidelines for those used in ministry -- where do you draw the line?

No brother. It is not "just a rich man and a poor man". In fact the KJV never mentions rich or poor. It only mentions what they are wearing. Why do you want to focus on the fact that it is not mentioned (whether are not they are brothers), yet you ignore what IS mentioned. The fact that is mentioned is that the clothes they are wearing, influences where they are allowed to sit. You are ASSUMING the size of their bank accounts, and you may be right or you may be wrong. Everyone who wears plain clothing is not a pauper, as everyone who wears "gay" clothing is not necessarily rich.

What James is saying is amazing in how relevant it is to this day. Where you sit is tied to your clothing. Whether it is "appropriate" for the platform. Your own testimony reveals the relevance of the scripture after nearly two thousand years.

I LOOK FORWARD TO THE DAY WHEN WE ARE JUDGED BY THE CONTENT OF OUR MESSAGE RATHER THAN THE COST OF OUR CLOTHES.

Do you have a "standard" that says that a preacher must wear a suit to preach, whether spoken or unspoken?

Do you have to wear a suit to be in the pulpit?

I believe these are the things James was addressing.

These are the things that you believe I am taking out of context.

Whichever one of us is right, the fact is that James identifies it as sin and it is clear that it is the ones with the say over who sits where are doing the sinning.

[n david]

In fact the KJV never mentions rich or poor.
What KJV are you reading?

For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment

And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool

But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats?

Do you believe James is talking about ordinary Joe Friday when he writes about a gold ring, good apparel and gay clothing, then later talks about RICH men?

[Aquila]

You haven't answered a question I've asked:

Where do you draw the line, using your view of James' writings? He's speaking of two unsaved men.

Let's look at what James wrote:

James 2:1-9 (ESV)
1 My brothers, show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory. 2 For if a man wearing a gold ring and fine clothing comes into your assembly, and a poor man in shabby clothing also comes in, 3 and if you pay attention to the one who wears the fine clothing and say, “You sit here in a good place,” while you say to the poor man, “You stand over there,” or, “Sit down at my feet,” 4 have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? 5 Listen, my beloved brothers, has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom, which he has promised to those who love him? 6 But you have dishonored the poor man. Are not the rich the ones who oppress you, and the ones who drag you into court? 7 Are they not the ones who blaspheme the honorable name by which you were called?
8 If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well. 9 But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors.

Where does it say that these two men are "unsaved"? In fact James accuses those who show such preference as having made unjustified distinctions "among themselves", indicating that this is a fellowship meeting, and a wealthy brother is being given favoritism, while the poor brother is being denied such partiality. While the example is comparing the favoritism of rich over poor... the lesson is don't show partiality in relation to attire, appearance, race, status, etc. He sums up the point in verses 8 through 9.

If you think this only applies to rich and poor... then I guess that in your mind it wouldn't apply to white vs. black? Or any other form of partiality???

It's the principle being taught. Don't show partiality based on externals. Love your neighbor as yourself.

You claim it shows that there shouldn't be any discrimination. You say it's wrong to have guidelines and expectations for those who wish to be used in ministry and on the platform.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that discrimination, guidelines, and expectations should be based on principles as found in the Scriptures. Not the arbitrary whims of a pastor, board, or denomination. The Scriptures are complete and adequate to address every issue that we might encounter in this life.

So where do you draw the line?

Where do I draw the line???

Where the Bible specifically draws the line, or where biblical principles found in Scriptures draw the line.

Where do you draw the line???

[n david]

I LOOK FORWARD TO THE DAY WHEN WE ARE JUDGED BY THE CONTENT OF OUR MESSAGE RATHER THAN THE COST OF OUR CLOTHES.
HA!

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-apcbLo9706g/Vd1hHgZv4pI/AAAAAAAATZI/tClgN39RzOk/s1600/thats-dumb.gif

[Tithesmeister]

What KJV are you reading?

For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment

And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool

But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats?

Do you believe James is talking about ordinary Joe Friday when he writes about a gold ring, good apparel and gay clothing, then later talks about RICH men?

Pardon me. I stand corrected.

Now that I know that you can read, could you show me in your KJV where they (the rich and the poor man in the example) were not saved?

Even if you can't, I won't say that you are dumb.

[n david]

Let's look at what James wrote:

James 2:1-9 (ESV)
1 My brothers, show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory. 2 For if a man wearing a gold ring and fine clothing comes into your assembly, and a poor man in shabby clothing also comes in, 3 and if you pay attention to the one who wears the fine clothing and say, “You sit here in a good place,” while you say to the poor man, “You stand over there,” or, “Sit down at my feet,” 4 have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? 5 Listen, my beloved brothers, has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom, which he has promised to those who love him? 6 But you have dishonored the poor man. Are not the rich the ones who oppress you, and the ones who drag you into court? 7 Are they not the ones who blaspheme the honorable name by which you were called? 8 If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well. 9 But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors.

Where does it say that these two men are "unsaved"?
Verse 2 is a good indicator. "For if a man wearing a gold ring and fine clothing comes into your assembly, and a poor man in shabby clothing also comes in,"

Let me know when you see it.

In fact James accuses those who show such preference as having made unjustified distinctions "among themselves", indicating that this is a fellowship meeting, and a wealthy brother is being given favoritism, while the poor brother is being denied such partiality.
"Among themselves" is not referring to the rich man. The rich man is not a brother, nor is the poor man a brother.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that discrimination, guidelines, and expectations should be based on principles as found in the Scriptures. Not the arbitrary whims of a pastor, board, or denomination.
Of course that's not what you're saying. You're just complaining about beards and want something in scripture to point to so you can make your point that you're mad as you-know-where and you're not going to take it anymore. :irate

Where the Bible specifically draws the line, or where biblical principles found in Scripture draw the line.
But you believe James said you're not to discriminate against anyone. (Not really, but we're pretending to make you feel better about the beard)

You like "what ifs" and fantasy stuff:

So here comes a Trinitarian minister into your church. He's not immoral. He prays five times a day, fasts three days a week and talks in tongues like a chinese laundromat. He wants to attend and preach.

Or what if Simple Sally comes in. She's by secular accounts a good and moral lady. She's never been saved, but wants to sing in the choir.

Let's imagine more...

Sam comes in. He's laid back. Doesn't wish to "conform" to "institutional" church dress. He's saved, sanctified and filled with the HG. But he doesn't want to spend money on dress clothes. He believes you should be able to "come as you are." After all, there's no Bible chapter and verse telling him he's required to wear dress slacks or shirt, much less a suit and tie to be a minister and preach. So he typically wears jeans or shorts and a graphic t-shirt to church. Poor Sam. He's got anointing, too. He loves to testify, because it's the only time they let him speak. He knows the scripture and always blesses the congregation. But alas, he sits on the pew in his t-shirt and shorts. One day, he thinks, I have a dream one day I'll be able to wear my shorts and t-shirt on the platform to preach a message.

[n david]

Now that I know that you can read, could you show me in your KJV where they (the rich and the poor man in the example) were not saved?

"For if a man wearing a gold ring and fine clothing comes into your assembly, and a poor man in shabby clothing also comes in,"

[Amanah]

Isn't clean shaved a modern CULTural thing? :)

no, the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, and Western Roman Catholics were clean shaven.

Julian the Apostate grew a beard in protest to the Roman Catholic Church.

[Aquila]

I'm seeing a pattern here.

Platform, platform, platform, platform.

What if we got rid of the platform???

Ever visit with the Quakers? They did it. They have meeting houses often structured like this:

http://www.jeanschnell.com/img/s7/v165/p740748639-4.jpg

[Tithesmeister]

Someone address this please.

A Pastor looks out at a sinful world. He notices that certain men wear suits. He notices that Politicians who are known for lying, CIA agents known for political assasinations and deception, Wall Street traders known for greed, and last but not least HOLLYWOOD ACTORS, famous for fornication and other sins all have this in common. They wear suits!

He reasons since various types (not just one as in hippies) of sinners wear suits we must forbid our people from wearing suits.

Would he be justified?


Brother Michael, this is an interesting question. I think I see the parallel you are making. On the one hand if you have a beard, you won't be allowed to minister, while on the other hand, if you have no suit, you would not be allowed to minister. If you are called of God AND have a nice suit, you are qualified, (unless you have a beard). If you are called of God and you happen to be wearing khakis and a polo, you are DIS-qualified (even if you are clean-shaven). Is that what you're getting at?

Pardon me for stirring the pot, but I have another question.

Is it hypocrisy to forbid our ladies to wear necklaces, and allow our men to wear necklaces (in the pulpit)?

I'd like nDavid to respond to this please?

[Tithesmeister]

"For if a man wearing a gold ring and fine clothing comes into your assembly, and a poor man in shabby clothing also comes in,"

Are you assuming that because he wore a ring he was not saved?

[Tithesmeister]

I'm seeing a pattern here.

Platform, platform, platform, platform.

What if we got rid of the platform???

Ever visit with the Quakers? They did it. They have meeting houses often structured like this:

http://www.jeanschnell.com/img/s7/v165/p740748639-4.jpg

I'm with you on that brother.

Just a trivia question. along these lines.

How many times is the word pulpit mentioned in the KJV?

[Aquila]

Verse 2 is a good indicator. "For if a man wearing a gold ring and fine clothing comes into your assembly, and a poor man in shabby clothing also comes in,"

Let me know when you see it.

It doesn't indicate their being saved or not. In fact, during that time, Christians just didn't let anyone know where they were meeting. People didn't just wonder in off the streets. They met primarily in homes, barns, caves, catacombs. I believe the case can be made that these are both saints of God come to attend the assembly. One poor, the other wealthy. The wealthy is offered the seat of honor and the poor man offered a place of subjugation.

Now, if you wish to see them as unsaved visitors, that still doesn't change the polemic. Unless you're trying to say we should only care about how we treat visitors and not the saints of God. lol

"Among themselves" is not referring to the rich man. The rich man is not a brother, nor is the poor man a brother.

Let's look...

James 2:4
4 Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?

The ESV renders it more accurately:

James 2:4 English Standard Version (ESV)
4 have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?

Here, James clearly states that the saints who show such partiality are making "distinctions among yourselves", not "distinctions among the visitors". If drawing distinction between the wealthy individual and the poor individual, they drew distinctions "among themselves", the rich man and the poor man are clearly accounted among their number... they are saints.

But, as I said before... even if you wished to interpret these as being visitors, the polemic doesn't change.

Of course that's not what you're saying. You're just complaining about beards and want something in scripture to point to so you can make your point that you're mad as you-know-where and you're not going to take it anymore. :irate

Oh, we're just hammering this single passage about partiality. We can move on to Christ's rebuke of the Pharisees and their propensity to glorify the doctrines and traditions of men, over the Word of God, making it of none effect, and how such were placing unnecessary burdens upon the people, shutting men out of the kingdom, and making converts twice the child of Hell they were... but I'm relatively certain that when we get into Christ's opinion of adding human opinions, doctrines, and traditions to God's Word, you'll get pretty frustrated with the unbiblical traditions of man that you are so heartily embracing.

But you believe James said you're not to discriminate against anyone. (Not really, but we're pretending to make you feel better about the beard)

You like "what ifs" and fantasy stuff:

So here comes a Trinitarian minister into your church. He's not immoral. He prays five times a day, fasts three days a week and talks in tongues like a chinese laundromat. He wants to attend and preach.

Or what if Simple Sally comes in. She's by secular accounts a good and moral lady. She's never been saved, but wants to sing in the choir.

You know that's not what I'm saying. :smack

Let's imagine more...

Sam comes in. He's laid back. Doesn't wish to "conform" to "institutional" church dress. He's saved, sanctified and filled with the HG. But he doesn't want to spend money on dress clothes. He believes you should be able to "come as you are." After all, there's no Bible chapter and verse telling him he's required to wear dress slacks or shirt, much less a suit and tie to be a minister and preach. So he typically wears jeans or shorts and a graphic t-shirt to church. Poor Sam. He's got anointing, too. He loves to testify, because it's the only time they let him speak. He knows the scripture and always blesses the congregation. But alas, he sits on the pew in his t-shirt and shorts. One day, he thinks, I have a dream one day I'll be able to wear my shorts and t-shirt on the platform to preach a message.

I know pastors who would give Sam the mic. Why wouldn't a pastor do so? Is he... chicken?

[n david]

Are you assuming that because he wore a ring he was not saved?
No.

James refers to others as brothers and sisters throughout his writings. Verse one he addresses, "My brethren," and in verse two he says, ""For if a man wearing a gold ring and fine clothing comes into your assembly, and a poor man in shabby clothing also comes in,"

If these were brothers, James would not have needed to distinguish or call it "your" assembly.

[Aquila]

I'm with you on that brother.

The Quakers have an interesting model of how they do church. They silently pray as a group. If someone is inspired to speak, they simply stand and deliver whatever God has laid upon their hearts to say. Then they are seated. They resume silent prayer and contemplate what the Lord just told them. All are free to speak as led by the Spirit, but only one at a time. A visitor wouldn't even know who the elder was until the very end when the elder drew things to a close. It's almost like house church... but everyone gets a real solid and quiet opportunity to speak. lol

I actually enjoyed my sojourn with the Quakers. I kinda miss them.

Just a trivia question. along these lines.

How many times is the word pulpit mentioned in the KJV?

I think it's only mentioned once or twice?

[Aquila]

No.

James refers to others as brothers and sisters throughout his writings. Verse one he addresses, "My brethren," and in verse two he says, ""For if a man wearing a gold ring and fine clothing comes into your assembly, and a poor man in shabby clothing also comes in,"

If these were brothers, James would not have needed to distinguish or call it "your" assembly.

Let's assume that you're right. How does that change James admonition not to show partiality in the church? Are you saying that if they were saints, it would be okay to favor the rich brother over the poor brother? Or is the passage essentially about not showing partiality in and of itself?

[Esaias]

The Quakers have an interesting model of how they do church. They silently pray as a group. If someone is inspired to speak, they simply stand and deliver whatever God has laid upon their hearts to say. Then they are seated. They resume silent prayer and contemplate what the Lord just told them. All are free to speak as led by the Spirit. A visitor wouldn't even know who the elder was until the very end when the elder drew things to a close. It's almost like house church... but everyone gets a real solid and quiet opportunity to speak. lol

I actually enjoyed my sojourn with the Quakers. I kinda miss them.



I think it's only mentioned once or twice?

Sounds like Gospel Assembly meetings (the ones I've been to, anyway). Also, sounds like an independent oneness pentecostal house church we were with back in Houston years ago. In fact, sounds like the first UPC I ever went to (where I got baptised). Except none of those were filled with 15 plus minute gaps of total, embarassing silence, punctuated by whispery quiet monologues about nothing doctrinally or various cat lady "testimonies". The Quakers ain't got a corner on anybody's market, though, cause back when I was a "troubled teen" the PDAP meerings were about the same. In fact, come to think of it, the PDAP meetings were more lively than the two Quaker meetings I've been to.

:heeheehee

[n david]

It doesn't indicate their being saved or not.
Sure it does. James doesn't address them as "brethren." IN FACT, he beings verse one with "My brethren" and then verse two talks about these two guys going into "your (the brethren's) assembly." Elsewhere throughout James, he identifies others as brothers and sisters, but not the rich man or poor man.

Now, if you wish to see them as unsaved visitors, that still doesn't change the polemic. Unless you're trying to say we should only care about how we treat visitors and not the saints of God.
I'm not the one trying to use this scripture to apply it to a situation, you are.



James 2:4
4 Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?

The ESV renders it more accurately:

James 2:4 English Standard Version (ESV)
4 have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?

Here, James clearly states that the saints who show such partiality are making "distinctions among yourselves", not "distinctions among the visitors".
Again, James is not including the two visiting men in this. Remember, verse one is addressed to "My brethren," and verse two talked about these two guys coming in to "your (the brethren's) assembly."

The "among yourselves" to which James is referring are the "My brethren" he addressed in verse one.

Here's a modern example: two visitors walk into a church. A group of people are gathered in a clique and began to (using the ESV) "make distinctions among themselves" about the visitors.

Also, why would the two in James be judging themselves? Makes no sense when you read it clearly.

You know that's not what I'm saying. :smack
No, I understand you just want something to try and use against those who prohibit beards from ministry.

[Tithesmeister]

Sure it does. James doesn't address them as "brethren." IN FACT, he beings verse one with "My brethren" and then verse two talks about these two guys going into "your (the brethren's) assembly." Elsewhere throughout James, he identifies others as brothers and sisters, but not the rich man or poor man.


I'm not the one trying to use this scripture to apply it to a situation, you are.




Again, James is not including the two visiting men in this. Remember, verse one is addressed to "My brethren," and verse two talked about these two guys coming in to "your (the brethren's) assembly."

The "among yourselves" to which James is referring are the "My brethren" he addressed in verse one.

Here's a modern example: two visitors walk into a church. A group of people are gathered in a clique and began to (using the ESV) "make distinctions among themselves" about the visitors.

Also, why would the two in James be judging themselves? Makes no sense when you read it clearly.


No, I understand you just want something to try and use against those who prohibit beards from ministry.

I believe that James is addressing the Jews in general as his brethren. He is not addressing an individual church for sure. And his congregation is hypothetical.

[Truthseeker]

no, the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, and Western Roman Catholics were clean shaven.

Julian the Apostate grew a beard in protest to the Roman Catholic Church.

So it’s a pagan custom then.

I should have been more clear, I was referring to American culture.

[Amanah]

So it’s a pagan custom then.

I should have been more clear, I was referring to American culture.

I don't think the founding fathers had beards, so it's their fault.

[n david]

Is it hypocrisy to forbid our ladies to wear necklaces, and allow our men to wear necklaces (in the pulpit)?

I'd like nDavid to respond to this please?
I believe you meant neckties, not necklaces for men.

I don't believe a lady should be in the pulpit . . .

:heeheehee

Honestly, a necktie serves no useful purpose or function. It's main role is to provide color and pattern with a suit.

In much the same manner, the necklace serves no useful purpose or function. It's main role is to provide beauty to the lady wearing it.

[Tithesmeister]

I believe you meant neckties, not necklaces for men.

I don't believe a lady should be in the pulpit . . .

:heeheehee

Honestly, a necktie serves no useful purpose or function. It's main role is to provide color and pattern with a suit.

In much the same manner, the necklace serves no useful purpose or function. It's main role is to provide beauty to the lady wearing it.

Sometimes I get confused and call them man necklaces. So, do you allow neckties in the pulpit?

[n david]

Sometimes I get confused and call them man necklaces. So, do you allow neckties in the pulpit?
The Pastor of the church I attend does not prohibit ties.

This is where you ask why the hypocrisy, since the UPC has taken a position against necklaces but not neckties.

[Aquila]

Sounds like Gospel Assembly meetings (the ones I've been to, anyway). Also, sounds like an independent oneness pentecostal house church we were with back in Houston years ago. In fact, sounds like the first UPC I ever went to (where I got baptised). Except none of those were filled with 15 plus minute gaps of total, embarassing silence, punctuated by whispery quiet monologues about nothing doctrinally or various cat lady "testimonies". The Quakers ain't got a corner on anybody's market, though, cause back when I was a "troubled teen" the PDAP meerings were about the same. In fact, come to think of it, the PDAP meetings were more lively than the two Quaker meetings I've been to.

:heeheehee

Lol

[Aquila]

Sure it does. James doesn't address them as "brethren." IN FACT, he beings verse one with "My brethren" and then verse two talks about these two guys going into "your (the brethren's) assembly." Elsewhere throughout James, he identifies others as brothers and sisters, but not the rich man or poor man.


I'm not the one trying to use this scripture to apply it to a situation, you are.




Again, James is not including the two visiting men in this. Remember, verse one is addressed to "My brethren," and verse two talked about these two guys coming in to "your (the brethren's) assembly."

The "among yourselves" to which James is referring are the "My brethren" he addressed in verse one.

Here's a modern example: two visitors walk into a church. A group of people are gathered in a clique and began to (using the ESV) "make distinctions among themselves" about the visitors.

Also, why would the two in James be judging themselves? Makes no sense when you read it clearly.

James wrote:

James 2:4 English Standard Version (ESV)
4 have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?

The elders/saints showing partiality towards the two in attendance are said to have, "made distinctions among yourselves" by judging and showing partiality towards the rich brother over the poor brother. This couldn't be said if the two they judged were not brethren and counted among their number.

No, I understand you just want something to try and use against those who prohibit beards from ministry.

No. I'm only pointing out that it is a sin to show partially between brethren. Since a beard isn't a sin, like you said, such a standard unnecessarily divides the body, and makes brethren with facial hair second class Christians.

[Evang.Benincasa]

No. I'm only pointing out that it is a sin to show partially between brethren. Since a beard isn't a sin, like you said, such a standard unnecessarily divides the body, and makes brethren with facial hair second class Christians.

Unnessercery divides the body, like some preachers saying that if you don't have a beard you are effeminate.


Amen! And GOD created and designed the beard to be on a mans face. They are fighting against God!

Hey, if the elders and the church family are cool about wanting no beards then have at it. If the elders and the church family are cool with having beards have at it. 12 Tribe community you either have a beard or you are not in their club period. That's what they want, their members are willing and wanting to go along with the program. If I don't like it I can take my dollies and move down the road. No harm, and no foul. All this "divide" the Body stuff is a bunch of triple venti latte snowflakes and soft hands. If you walk into a church and the men all have beards and you aren't into it then take it on down the line. If you walk into a church and their clean shaven as a baby's hind end, wearing suits with black ties, white shirts, and ferragamo slippers, but that's not your cup of Joe Bandy, then time to go. 80,000 different denominations, churches, and schisms in this country alone so you have quite a selection to be the church of your choice on Sunday or Saturday.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Amen! And GOD created and designed the beard to be on a mans face. They are fighting against God!

http://allegralaboratory.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/beardedlady.gif

[Aquila]

Unnessercery divides the body, like some preachers saying that if you don't have a beard you are effeminate.

I agree. I remember chiding you a little about this, saying essentially the same thing. Then you taught me what gay bears were. I want to say for the record, I don't think that men without beards are effeminate. I will say that many, not all, do LOOK effeminate. Lol

Hey, if the elders and the church family are cool about wanting no beards then have at it. If the elders and the church family are cool with having beards have at it.

Yeah, if they're all cool with leveling unbiblical standards on men's shoulders, and lording over the body, with a standard that isn't biblical, and would disqualify Christ Himself from their prescious platforms, what does it matter? Right?

I guess actually preaching and teaching the Word isn't enough. We need the traditions of men, else we might become too much like Jesus. After all, He had a beard, didn't He?

[Evang.Benincasa]

I agree. I remember chiding you a little about this, saying essentially the same thing. Then you taught me what gay bears were. I want to say for the record, I don't think that men without beards are effeminate. I will say that many, not all, do LOOK effeminate. Lol

There you go, saying men without beards are effeminate.
You better watch out that there are no bears in your woods. :lol


Yeah, if they're all cool with leveling unbiblical standards on men's shoulders, and lording over the body, with a standard that isn't biblical, and would disqualify Christ Himself from their prescious platforms, what does it matter? Right?

I don't think you understand, the church "family" that would make up everyone going to the church, not just the preachers. So, who is lording?
See that is the point, everyone has no problem with what THEY are doing. You on the other hand as some caped crusader for ecclesiastical justice believe you are right. But, they don't care, they like all the men wearing beards, if you don't like it, and want to prove to them that they are a bunch of legalists then you can go find somewhere else to park your soapbox.

If the church FAMILY wants no beards on everyone then no one is lording over anyone.


I guess actually preaching and teaching the Word isn't enough. We need the traditions of men, else we might become too much like Jesus. After all, He had a beard, didn't He?

Good grief, then why aren't you having church in a fishing boat, or a field, or a garden.

:lol

[FlamingZword]

I know. And that should bring sobriety to your position. Because the one on the Throne will be Jesus. Who wore a beard.

I find it kind of ironic that we are going to be judged by Jesus who wore a beard. I wonder if he will still be wearing one in his throne; it would be kind of amusing to see those anti-beard preachers standing before a fully bearded Jesus. :-)

[Evang.Benincasa]

I find it kind of ironic that we are going to be judged by Jesus who wore a beard. I wonder if he will still be wearing one in his throne; it would be kind of amusing to see those anti-beard preachers standing before a fully bearded Jesus. :-)

Does He still have His beard? :heeheehee

[Charnock]

If one teaches that beards are "sin", are they teaching false doctrine?

Honestly I don’t think I have ever heard anyone say beards are a sin?

Oh, please. This was a foregone conclusion that was part and parcel of "Apostolic Identity" for decades. Revisionist history is insulting and dishonest.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Oh, please. This was a foregone conclusion that was part and parcel of "Apostolic Identity" for decades. Revisionist history is insulting and dishonest.

So, how long were you in deception?

[Charnock]

So, how long were you in deception?

About the same amount of time you weren't a preterist.

[Evang.Benincasa]

About the same amount of time you weren't a preterist.

How long is that?

[Aquila]

There you go, saying men without beards are effeminate.
You better watch out that there are no bears in your woods. :lol

I'll never go camping again. Lol

I don't think you understand, the church "family" that would make up everyone going to the church, not just the preachers. So, who is lording?
See that is the point, everyone has no problem with what THEY are doing. You on the other hand as some caped crusader for ecclesiastical justice believe you are right. But, they don't care, they like all the men wearing beards, if you don't like it, and want to prove to them that they are a bunch of legalists then you can go find somewhere else to park your soapbox.

True. But we can be catalysts for change, where we are, if we have the courage.

If the church FAMILY wants no beards on everyone then no one is lording over anyone.

Yes. But there needs to be a voice in the wilderness denouncing such unbiblical garbage. We need to identify the error, and identify the false churches.

Good grief, then why aren't you having church in a fishing boat, or a field, or a garden.
:lol

Those places sound too close to the woods, that's why! :lol

[FlamingZword]

Does He still have His beard? :heeheehee

I don't know, maybe he still does or he does not, but it does not matter to me.
I do not get worked up over natural growing facial hair.

Yes I shave every day, but only because I just simply can't grow a decent beard, I tried, but I failed miserable, so I just gave up my rebellious ways.
So I guess I would be welcomed to preach in the platform. :heeheehee

[Evang.Benincasa]

I'll never go camping again. Lol

Especially in California.



True. But we can be catalysts for change, where we are, if we have the courage.

Who is the we? There is only the they, and they like what they are doing. They believe that all their men should sport beards. They have Bible, which has a huge amount of beard toting prophets, and apostles. Yet, you come along and want to disrupt what they are doing? Hasn't forums taught you anything? That people believe what they believe, and wanting to be the avenger just makes the GROUP turn a deaf ear. It isn't even because they are being unkind, they really like what is going on. They love the preacher, the preacher loves them. If you go hang out with them they are really cool people, who will love you. But when you tell them that the Bible doesn't make beards or non beards mandertory, they start telling you about Aaron's beard, Jesus' beard, did you have a beard when you got the Holy Ghost, and did you have your whiskers when you were baptized, and why do you trim your beard? Because the beard isn't supposed to be trimmed. Your voice shouting in the wilderness will go full horse before they stop what they are doing. If you don't like it, then it is time to shout in some other wilderness.



Yes. But there needs to be a voice in the wilderness denouncing such unbiblical garbage. We need to identify the error, and identify the false churches.

What happened to "when the student is ready the teacher will appear?"

Umbilical garbage? They don't believe so, they don't believe it's error, they don't see their church is false. 80,000 denominations, churches, and schisms. You think they are all on the same page?

[FlamingZword]

I agree. I remember chiding you a little about this, saying essentially the same thing. Then you taught me what gay bears were. I want to say for the record, I don't think that men without beards are effeminate. I will say that many, not all, do LOOK effeminate. Lol

Please I do want to even take a chance that I might look effeminate, I shall start growing a beard right away.


Ha ha just kidding, nope, sorry bro, I will still shave every day. :D

[Evang.Benincasa]

I don't know, maybe he still does or he does not, but it does not matter to me.
I do not get worked up over natural growing facial hair.

Yes I shave every day, but only because I just simply can't grow a decent beard, I tried, but I failed miserable, so I just gave up my rebellious ways.
So I guess I would be welcomed to preach in the platform. :heeheehee

Well, issues with growing a beard is genetics. Or hair loss at an early age, due to high cortisol, and low T levels. Causing the sebum to harden. On the face getting spotty or scraggly facial hair could be a T level issue, but still genetics plays a big role. All women have facial hair, but genetics cause that hair not to grow like men. If a woman takes hormone shots the beard will grow. Therefore taking tests to see where your T level is at may help.

[FlamingZword]

Well, issues with growing a beard is genetics. Or hair loss at an early age, due to high cortisol, and low T levels. Causing the sebum to harden. On the face getting spotty or scraggly facial hair could be a T level issue, but still genetics plays a big role. All women have facial hair, but genetics cause that hair not to grow like men. If a woman takes hormone shots the beard will grow. Therefore taking tests to see where your T level is at may help.

So if I take some kind of hormones I might be able to grow a decent beard?

Wow, I think I might look into that, so that I can join Aquila and bro Michael. :D

[Aquila]

Especially in California.

LOL

Who is the we? There is only the they, and they like what they are doing. They believe that all their men should sport beards. They have Bible, which has a huge amount of beard toting prophets, and apostles. Yet, you come along and want to disrupt what they are doing? Hasn't forums taught you anything? That people believe what they believe, and wanting to be the avenger just makes the GROUP turn a deaf ear. It isn't even because they are being unkind, they really like what is going on. They love the preacher, the preacher loves them. If you go hang out with them they are really cool people, who will love you. But when you tell them that the Bible doesn't make beards or non beards mandertory, they start telling you about Aaron's beard, Jesus' beard, did you have a beard when you got the Holy Ghost, and did you have your whiskers when you were baptized, and why do you trim your beard? Because the beard isn't supposed to be trimmed. Your voice shouting in the wilderness will go full horse before they stop what they are doing. If you don't like it, then it is time to shout in some other wilderness.

What happened to "when the student is ready the teacher will appear?"

Umbilical garbage? They don't believe so, they don't believe it's error, they don't see their church is false. 80,000 denominations, churches, and schisms. You think they are all on the same page?

Taking such a stand, being vocal about it, denouncing legalisms involving both shaving and required beards isn't so much to win over or effect those who believe in these false doctrines. It is to call attention to the error publically so that fewer embrace their notions without question, and to help bring reconciliation and healing to those whose lives, ministries, dreams, and passions were crushed by some legalistic pastor with a passion for or against something as truly meaningless as a beard.

Ministering in the rear of the flock is often the most rewarding of ministries. You see the sheep that were battered and broken by circumstance, who are failing to keep up. You see those who have given up. You see those who have wondered form the flock through temptation or frustration.

I know it seems so small... but I know grown men on this forum who have beards. And they would weep like babies with healing tears if they were apologized to for all the unnecessary and unbiblical rejection, slander, character assassination, and denunciations they've faced merely for wearing a beard.

When I started wearing a beard it wasn't out of rebellion. It was because Christina thought I looked more "distinguished" instead of so "baby faced". I've always had a baby face. The facial hair was a nice look. It also helped me see myself in a new light. After all the drama of family trauma, military trauma, church abuse, a divorce, financial ruin, etc. to see myself differently was kinda healing. I had weathered the storm. God carried me through. Life happened, and I survived. That old me, that old life, it's gone. New me. A new me who has fallen even more in love with Jesus than the old me.

Think about it, since I was from an ultra-conservative background, I had looked the same for decades. After all I had been through, I needed a change. I'm not saying everyone does. I'm saying, I did. Growing my beard out symbolically represented my letting go of so much pain. I was no longer the abused boy who was brutally beaten as child. I was no longer the crisp, pressed, and shaved soldier I had become as a young man. I was no longer the subjugated, trapped, and spiritually bound clean shaven ultra-con legalist. I was no longer the failure of a husband. The change helped me look into the mirror and see someone new. Someone fresh. Someone older. Someone that accepted the past and closed the book on it. A man with a new life.

Then, feeling I visited a local Apostolic church. One I hoped was more moderate based on what I had heard.

Do I really need to go into detail about what happened within 10 minutes of being there and seeing a couple people who knew me way back when? After dealing with the mind numbing teasing, whispering, and eventual harassment over my beard... I realized something. At what point do I refuse to allow them to own me?

Some say, "But it's just a beard." No it isn't. It's far bigger than that. I'm reminded of a story...

2 Samuel 23:11-12 English Standard Version (ESV)
11 And next to him was Shammah, the son of Agee the Hararite. The Philistines gathered together at Lehi, where there was a plot of ground full of lentils, and the men fled from the Philistines. 12 But he took his stand in the midst of the plot and defended it and struck down the Philistines, and the Lord worked a great victory.

Here, a man took a stand. He'd not be pushed around any more. Yes, it was only a plot of land with a pea patch. Sure, many might say, "Why risk your life Shammah? It's only a pea patch!" They were right. It was only a pea patch. But it was... his pea patch. And when something is yours and you have very little else... no matter how seemingly insignificant it might seem. It's worth fighting and dying for.

I know that it's only a beard. But... it is my beard. And I refuse to surrender to the bullying, slander, character assassination, and pressure to become subjugated to the unbiblical standard of overreaching, and spiritually abusive, human authority.

And if having something as small an issue as a beard makes me an outcast... if having a beard makes my church reject me... if having a beard makes them treat me like a second class citizen in the church... then it isn't me who has the big problem with this little ol' beard. It's... them.

Sometimes you have to take a stand and defend your pea patch.

[Amanah]

I don't know Chris, I'm wondering if you are being a drama queen about the beard just to stir the pot. I honestly don't think having a beard is that much of an issue in churches today. And in time, once the old timers have passed on, it will be no issue at all.

What is much more of a concern is preserving like precious faith from the onslaught of worldliness and compromise that is buffeting the church.

[derAlte]

I honestly don't think having a beard is that much of an issue in churches today. And in time, once the old timers have passed on, it will be no issue at all.

What is much more of a concern is preserving like precious faith from the onslaught of worldliness and compromise that is buffeting the church.

Amen, Sister!

[Aquila]

I don't know Chris, I'm wondering if you are being a drama queen about the beard just to stir the pot.

Yeah, I was being a bit dramatic. But I'm only doing that because it's hard to capture the emotion one feels when being singled out, held in contempt, told they can't serve, treated differently, over something like their preference for a beard...and there's absolutely NO SCRIPTURE to warrant such treatment.

So, now not only have we the issue of how it feels to be singled out over something like a beard, but we have a mindset that is conditioned to embrace unbiblical standards, i.e. unbiblical teachings. We need to be people of the book. We're always told that we need have our faith grounded in the Scripture... but when one turns to the Scriptures and finds all the unbiblical gobblygook that is crammed down our throats by the organization or the pulpit... we're being rebellious. That's a catch 22. Do we embrace the unbiblical? Or do we take a stand against the unbiblical?

Embracing unbiblical standards leads to embracing other unbiblical teachings. We've seen a slew of them - divine flesh, holy magic hair, head coverings, the list could go on and on. The outcry against standards against beards is more than a cry against a standard. It is a cry to return to the book.

I honestly don't think having a beard is that much of an issue in churches today. And in time, once the old timers have passed on, it will be no issue at all.

I think it depends on the district and perhaps the church in question. I've heard of churches that are beard-friendly. But I know a whole lot more that are not. I'd say it's almost 3 to 1. Then you have to factor in the one's where the pastor slowly migrated to a "platform policy" and relegated bearded men to second class saints. These will say they have no issue with beards when you speak to them about it. But when you actually attend they break it down that while there is nothing wrong with a beard... you can't sing in the choir with one. Ummm...if there is nothing wrong with a beard...why can't I sing in the choir??? It's like saying, "We're not racist, we welcome minorities and people of color." But if a minority attends, they discover they are not allowed to sing in the choir because they aren't white. It's talking out of both sides of their mouths.

And if you've ever frequented other Christian forums where people know about Apostolics... they point out these unbiblical standards as evidence that we're not biblically centered, but authority of man and tradition centered. Sure, some men have fallen away or left Apostolic churches over the treatment they received for just having a beard. But there are countless more men who have been invited to an Apostolic church and heard, "Oh, you don't want to go there, they believe beards are bad. They'd not even let Jesus on their platforms!" And guess what... that soul thinks we're some unbiblical legalistic cult... and never comes.

Errors like these, though they seem so small, cost souls. How many souls have been cast into Hell because they thought we were unbiblical on account of unbiblical standards like these? Even if it were one soul, one eternity, a stupid and unbiblical standard such as this is unforgiveable. It's the little foxes that spoil the vineyard.

What is much more of a concern is preserving like precious faith from the onslaught of worldliness and compromise that is buffeting the church.

False doctrine is of the world Amanah. Every world religion and philosophy of this world is predicated upon what is false and unbiblical. So, those opposing unbiblical traditions and practices in the church ARE trying to preserve the faith from the onslaught of worldliness and compromise. We're attacking the foxes that have gotten into the house, while so many others are only focused on keeping the foxes outside the house at bay. Protecting from outside influences is important. But so is cleansing the house of alien influences that have gotten in. We don't just coddle a false teaching, enshrine it as a beloved "standard of the elders", and let it breathe it's hellish breath into the lives of saints and rails against lost souls who would otherwise attend.

Every false way, false doctrine, tradition of man IS a category of worldliness. And sister... we're chin deep in it. Just ask any man who was run out of a church over preferring a beard after asking for Bible on the position. They treat us like unwed mothers. They treat us like second class saints.

Correction... I know mothers who had children out of wedlock who sing in the choir. But, oh no, a beard on a man. Can't have that up there! lol Why can't we all just serve the Lord freely??? I mean, they take my money without complaint.

[n david]

I don't know Chris, I'm wondering if you are being a drama queen about the beard just to stir the pot.
Well, he has a history of making posts he claims were "devil's advocate" posts and others in which he was "hypothesizing."

Hard to take the posts too seriously.

[n david]

True. But we can be catalysts for change, where we are, if we have the courage.

https://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/uploader/image/2018/03/26/hogg-fist.jpg

[Aquila]

Well, he has a history of making posts he claims were "devil's advocate" posts and others in which he was "hypothesizing."

Hard to take the posts too seriously.

True. Don't take my posts so seriously that they upset you. But don't disregard them so much that you turn off your brain and refuse to consider what's being illustrated.

[n david]

The elders/saints showing partiality towards the two in attendance are said to have, "made distinctions among yourselves" by judging and showing partiality towards the rich brother over the poor brother. This couldn't be said if the two they judged were not brethren and counted among their number.
That is simply incorrect.

There's a room full of people. One group is discussing things "among themselves." You would claim that means everyone in the room is included with the group. Not so. It's basic English grammar.

[Aquila]

...

Are you too afraid to look at your leadership and tell them, "Hey, this beard thing isn't Bible. Why don't we get back to the book?"

If you love and respect your leadership, you're obligated to speak up when they are wrong. Good leaders and good followers need one another.

[n david]

True. Don't take my posts so seriously that they upset you. But don't disregard them so much that you turn off your brain and refuse to consider what's being illustrated.

This is close to where I'm at. That's the danger of someone using too much "devil's advocate" "hypothetical" "hyperbole" "I'm posting things I don't really believe but don't say so until it's refuted" stuff.

[n david]

Are you too afraid to look at your leadership and tell them, "Hey, this beard thing isn't Bible. Why don't we get back to the book?"
Why? Honestly beards are so low on the list of important things, I really don't care. That's why, when we started attending this UPC church, I shaved the beard I had been growing. I respect the Pastor and elders of this church and wanted to put myself in a position where I could help if needed. Seriously, there are far more important things on which to take a stand than a hairy face.

If you love and respect your leadership, you're obligated to speak up when they are wrong.
No, you're not "obligated." That's what the modern, "it's all about me" Christian wants to believe, but it's untrue. The only time the Bible says to go to someone is 1) if you have ought against them; 2) if they're in sin.

[Aquila]

That is simply incorrect.

There's a room full of people. One group is discussing things "among themselves." You would claim that means everyone in the room is included with the group. Not so. It's basic English grammar.

Let's look at a more dynamic translation:


James 2:1-9 (New Living Translation)
My dear brothers and sisters, how can you claim to have faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ if you favor some people over others?
2 For example, suppose someone comes into your meeting dressed in fancy clothes and expensive jewelry, and another comes in who is poor and dressed in dirty clothes. 3 If you give special attention and a good seat to the rich person, but you say to the poor one, “You can stand over there, or else sit on the floor”—well, 4 doesn’t this discrimination show that your judgments are guided by evil motives?
5 Listen to me, dear brothers and sisters. Hasn’t God chosen the poor in this world to be rich in faith? Aren’t they the ones who will inherit the Kingdom he promised to those who love him? 6 But you dishonor the poor! Isn’t it the rich who oppress you and drag you into court? 7 Aren’t they the ones who slander Jesus Christ, whose noble name you bear?
8 Yes indeed, it is good when you obey the royal law as found in the Scriptures: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” 9 But if you favor some people over others, you are committing a sin. You are guilty of breaking the law.

In this translation, James doesn't indicate if the two are unsaved visitors or attending brothers. The point that James is making applies either way. The point of the passage is that favoring some people over others is a sin.

Let's remove the example James gives us and read his point...

James 2:1 & 8-9 (New Living Translation)
1 My dear brothers and sisters, how can you claim to have faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ if you favor some people over others?
8 Yes indeed, it is good when you obey the royal law as found in the Scriptures: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” 9 But if you favor some people over others, you are committing a sin. You are guilty of breaking the law.

[n david]

Let's look at a more dynamic translation:

James 2:1-9 (New Living Translation)
My dear brothers and sisters, how can you claim to have faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ if you favor some people over others?
2 For example, suppose someone comes into your meeting dressed in fancy clothes and expensive jewelry, and another comes in who is poor and dressed in dirty clothes. 3 If you give special attention and a good seat to the rich person, but you say to the poor one, “You can stand over there, or else sit on the floor”—well, 4 doesn’t this discrimination show that your judgments are guided by evil motives?
5 Listen to me, dear brothers and sisters. Hasn’t God chosen the poor in this world to be rich in faith? Aren’t they the ones who will inherit the Kingdom he promised to those who love him? 6 But you dishonor the poor! Isn’t it the rich who oppress you and drag you into court? 7 Aren’t they the ones who slander Jesus Christ, whose noble name you bear?
8 Yes indeed, it is good when you obey the royal law as found in the Scriptures: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” 9 But if you favor some people over others, you are committing a sin. You are guilty of breaking the law.

In this translation, James doesn't indicate if the two are unsaved visitors or attending brothers. The point that James is making applies either way. The point of the passage is that favoring some people over others is a sin.

I'm not going to continue arguing this. Maybe you'll find a translation some day which changes the focus on the clothes being worn to beard vs shaved.

Good luck with that. :dogpat

[Aquila]

Why? Honestly beards are so low on the list of important things, I really don't care. That's why, when we started attending this UPC church, I shaved the beard I had been growing. I respect the Pastor and elders of this church and wanted to put myself in a position where I could help if needed. Seriously, there are far more important things on which to take a stand than a hairy face.


No, you're not "obligated." That's what the modern, "it's all about me" Christian wants to believe, but it's untrue. The only time the Bible says to go to someone is 1) if you have ought against them; 2) if they're in sin.

Beards are low on the list... Maybe. Maybe not.

-I have a family of four.
-I've decided that we should leave our house church network.
-We need a church, an Apostolic church.
-I'm a man with a beard.
-The only Apostolic churches around me are anti-beard.
-I see nothing in my Bible supporting such a teaching.
-Since such a teaching is unbiblical, it is a tradition of man.
-Since it is taught as binding, it is a doctrine.
-If they have this unbiblical doctrine, how many more do they have?
-I find myself just as leery about the Apostolic churches around me who are in false doctrines of legalism as I am other churches around me who are in false doctrine as it applies to other elements of Christian belief and living.

What you find to be low on the list of important things... I see as an indicator that deeper issues and false teachings exist. You're saying, "Oh, it's only one chunk of floating ice." I'm saying, "No. False teachings like these are only the tip of the iceberg."

[Aquila]

I'm not going to continue arguing this. Maybe you'll find a translation some day which changes the focus on the clothes being worn to beard vs shaved.

Good luck with that. :dogpat

So, you're saying that James is warning not to show favoritism. He used the EXAMPLE of showing favoritism over clothing that indicates wealth or poverty. But since he didn't mention beards specifically... you think James would be A-Okay if you argued that he had no right to preach or minister and that had to sit down because of his beard, while you let others without beards just preach away, sing the choir, teach Sunday school, etc.???

[Amanah]

Chris, you sat in a trinnie house church for how many years explaining to your kids what you felt was truth.

You are an intelligent man and you already know what is preached in Apostolic Churches, so it is unlikely there are going to be doctrinal surprises for you.

[n david]

So, you're saying that James is warning not to show favoritism. He used the EXAMPLE of showing favoritism over clothing that indicates wealth or poverty. But since he didn't mention beards specifically... you think James would be A-Okay if you argued that he had no right to preach or minister and that had to sit down because of his beard, while you let others without beards just preach away, sing the choir, teach Sunday school, etc.???
Sure, whatever you say. :dogpat

[n david]

Chris, you sat in a trinnie house church for how many years explaining to your kids what you felt was truth.
But they allowed beards!

[n david]

Beards are low on the list... Maybe. Maybe not.
Sorry I was not more clear -- personally, for me, beards are far down the list of important things. Very, very far down.

-I have a family of four.
-I've decided that we should leave our house church network.
-We need a church, an Apostolic church.
-I'm a man with a beard.
-The only Apostolic churches around me are anti-beard.
-I see nothing in my Bible supporting such a teaching.
-Since such a teaching is unbiblical, it is a tradition of man.
-Since it is taught as binding, it is a doctrine.
-If they have this unbiblical doctrine, how many more do they have?
-I find myself just as leery about the Apostolic churches around me who are in false doctrines of legalism as I am other churches around me who are in false doctrine as it applies to other elements of Christian belief and living.

What you find to be low on the list of important things... I see as an indicator that deeper issues and false teachings exist. You're saying, "Oh, it's only one chunk of floating ice." I'm saying, "No. False teachings like these are only the tip of the iceberg."
Okay.

[Aquila]

Chris, you sat in a trinnie house church for how many years explaining to your kids what you felt was truth.

You are an intelligent man and you already know what is preached in Apostolic Churches, so it is unlikely there are going to be doctrinal surprises for you.

Well, I kind of hoped the Apostolics in my area would have gravitated more towards what the Bible teaches.

[Aquila]

But they allowed beards!

Actually, yes. They are more welcoming to men with beards than the Apostolic churches in my area.

[Dordrecht]

Wow, over 300 posts about beards!
Amazing!

[Evang.Benincasa]

So if I take some kind of hormones I might be able to grow a decent beard?

Wow, I think I might look into that, so that I can join Aquila and bro Michael. :D

You might not have hormones. :D

[Evang.Benincasa]

Taking such a stand, being vocal about it, denouncing legalisms involving both shaving and required beards isn't so much to win over or effect those who believe in these false doctrines. It is to call attention to the error publically so that fewer embrace their notions without question, and to help bring reconciliation and healing to those whose lives, ministries, dreams, and passions were crushed by some legalistic pastor with a passion for or against something as truly meaningless as a beard.

Bro, these brothers have Bible for their beard wearing, they believe it is a part of manliness. They believe the beard marks maturity, also that gray marks eldership (as old ) so no dying the hair. Beards are untrimmed, but hair on the top of the head remains short as high and tight. The rest of your above quote is a bit dramatic so get your T levels checked. Saints embrace their notions without question? Let me ask you a question? Do you read what I post? Did you read and UNDERSTAND what I posted to you. Bro, they have a Bible, the people in the Bible talk about bearded people. Jesus is described as having a beard, and it being torn out of His cheek. Aaron has an oily long beard. Also they notice that the men when they start coming of age naturally grow a beard? Bro, What are these people accepting without question? Another thing, you want to help bring reconciliation and healing to those whose lives, ministries, dreams, and passions were crushed by some legalistic pastor with a passion for or against something as truly meaningless as a beard. Again, you didn't get it, what I posted was not about religious basket cases who were unknowingly duped into the Unification Church. These people knew FULL WELL what they were getting themselves into. They were all of a sudden have the beard teaching sprung on them. They sure didn't catch a beating from a pulpit how they better start growing their beard, or else. I can't stress this stuff enough, you know, whether you like it or not, there are people in Pentecost who understand their standards of separation. You know what else? They really don't care what you think about them. They aren't legalists, because it isn't Mosaic law keeping, they do it because they understand it, and it is going to make them any more saved, but it is the fruit of their salvation. You want to debate that? Go right ahead, but they have their arguments also against what you are doing.



Ministering in the rear of the flock is often the most rewarding of ministries.

You mean a parking lot prophet? Or the disgruntled who wants to lead from the pews? Who wants to liberate the people and tell them how their elders are not only wrong about beards, but are trying to manipulate them? How the ministry doesn't love them, how the elders are really putting everyone under spiritual abuse, and that you really are the one with the golden keys to freedom? Bro, that only works with saints who are struggling, but not over standards of dress. They have personal issues, that the SJW who is trying to sow tares among the wheat, have zero clues about. You might get them out of the so called legalist church, but what then? You going to sign the papers of adoption? Start your own church? It sadly is a snowball effect, because while you thought you were bringing them sweet cane of liberty, their issues concerning standards of dress, and attire was the very least of their issues. After a while (of you adopting them) find out that wearing a beard, long sleeves,long overalls didn't bother them one bit. But now you got what you wanted, a disciple. No, Chris, the adage is still true, "when the student is ready, the teacher will appear." If the soil isn't made ready by JESUS you are going to be hitting nothing more than stumps and rocks.


You see the sheep that were battered and broken by circumstance, who are failing to keep up. You see those who have given up. You see those who have wondered form the flock through temptation or frustration.

You know, the above starts to sound like some mantra, which gets repeated over, and over again. Like a Mormon Bicycle Missionary repeating, "The Book of Mormon is True and Joseph Smith is a Prophet." What you posted above is the chief reason to not take people from other churches. Had a Baptist who wanted to come to our church, I told him no, stay in his church and make it right. He had a fallen out with the elders, not over doctrine, or book, chapter, and verse, but over personal reasons. I told him you don't even know what we believe. No, you need to straighten out your relationships. Because taking that brother, would of just caused problems, mainly for him and his family.
Sometimes people forget we are on a forum, and this is where we spit and whittle, but this isn't church. taking the SJW show on the road has major consequences. People get pulled out of churches and then you reject them because you don't have the time to care and feed them. They end up out in the cold, with their children.


I know it seems so small... but I know grown men on this forum who have beards. And they would weep like babies with healing tears if they were apologized to for all the unnecessary and unbiblical rejection, slander, character assassination, and denunciations they've faced merely for wearing a beard.

Bro, I'm real sorry, I wasn't raised in church. I was raised around some hard guys. Apologies weren't handed out. My moto is don't tell me your sorry, show me your sorry. That's all, we are supposed to be men, we are supposed to be the hunter gatherers. Shedding tears, I have shed my share, but I don't need an apology from my brother, or my other. People know what they are doing. But, back to the meat of my original post. THE PEOPLE LIKE WHAT THEY ARE DOING MAN! Yo u don't like it move on, and let someone else sit in the pew. No hard feelings, these people want their men in their church to wear beards. I was clean shaven, they wished for me to be and believe as they. I had a beard ever since I hit puberty, facial hair started to grow. My dad always had a fu manchu (not the bull) but the moustache. By the time I met brother Dan , I wasn't going to grow a beard again, and I didn't see the beard as mandertory, not even a hint. They believe what they believe. Was there anyone huddled in the fetal position over this teaching? Wanting Lois to write an article on her spiritual abuse website concerning their woes? NO! They like it, they actually want it, they see it in the Bible, they feel that it is natural for the man to grow the facial hair to whatever length it wants to grow. The main thing I'm getting at, is that I was told all this from jump street. Therefore I make a decision whether or not I want to fly the united skies with them. You see, if I would of joined them with the thoughts of changing them, then that's my problem. I the big dummy. They already believe what they believe. I don't join to teach their young people over at the Sunday buffet, or grab a struggling couple to shed my rays of light upon them. If I had disagreements I took it to the elders, and without any of their people around. Because it is pretty hard trying to remove a size 12 Red Wing boot out of your rear end. Decent and in ministerial order. So, these people, LIKE, LOVE, what they are doing.



When I started wearing a beard it wasn't out of rebellion. It was because Christina thought I looked more "distinguished" instead of so "baby faced". I've always had a baby face.

Please honestly, no offense, but that's because your fat, and you have a fat face. Try a Paleo diet. You will shred, and shed your "baby fat?" :heeheehee


The facial hair was a nice look.

Yeah, homeless guys look so bella. :heeheehee

[Evang.Benincasa]

It also helped me see myself in a new light. After all the drama of family trauma, military trauma, church abuse, a divorce, financial ruin, etc. to see myself differently was kinda healing. I had weathered the storm. God carried me through. Life happened, and I survived. That old me, that old life, it's gone. New me. A new me who has fallen even more in love with Jesus than the old me.

So, can you accept someone who shaves off their beard for the same reasons?



Think about it, since I was from an ultra-conservative background, I had looked the same for decades. After all I had been through, I needed a change.

I had a beard for as long as I could remember, so when I changed, I shaved.
Can you accept that as well as your growing your garden?


I'm not saying everyone does. I'm saying, I did. Growing my beard out symbolically represented my letting go of so much pain.

Then you will understand fully if you remove the word "growing" to shaving.



I was no longer the abused boy who was brutally beaten as child. I was no longer the crisp, pressed, and shaved soldier I had become as a young man. I was no longer the subjugated, trapped, and spiritually bound clean shaven ultra-con legalist. I was no longer the failure of a husband. The change helped me look into the mirror and see someone new. Someone fresh. Someone older. Someone that accepted the past and closed the book on it. A man with a new life.

Hey, easy with the legalist, you know what I think is the most prevalent form of legalism. It sure has nothing to do with a shirt, shoes, and a tie. It is all about what Jesus said, it was acting the part on the outside but being a devil on the inside. I have had my share of common dress Christians who were the biggest devils to ever to walk upright. Evil doesn't need long uncut hair, and a dress, to snatch your paper boat down the sewer. Most of the time is takes the shape of a clown. In mainstream Christianity sadly that is what you have.


Then, feeling I visited a local Apostolic church. One I hoped was more moderate based on what I had heard.

Do I really need to go into detail about what happened within 10 minutes of being there and seeing a couple people who knew me way back when? After dealing with the mind numbing teasing, whispering, and eventual harassment over my beard... I realized something. At what point do I refuse to allow them to own me?

Bro, I'm the wrong guy to tell these religious sad tales of woe. My eschatology gets brought up, out of the clear blue. So, when people start to lose a discussion with me they pull that out of left field. We could be talking about whatever, they say something about my eschatology. Listen, you got to get over all of that. Getting called a heretic by people you love, having a close brother call you when your daughter is born and tell you that God is going to kill her because of your eschatology? All I told the brother is well, let's pray. Mind numbing teasing? Seriously? Bro, no offense but check the T levels, and make sure you don't drink out of bottles made with BHT.


Some say, "But it's just a beard." No it isn't. It's far bigger than that. I'm reminded of a story...

:runhills




2 Samuel 23:11-12 English Standard Version (ESV)
11 And next to him was Shammah, the son of Agee the Hararite. The Philistines gathered together at Lehi, where there was a plot of ground full of lentils, and the men fled from the Philistines. 12 But he took his stand in the midst of the plot and defended it and struck down the Philistines, and the Lord worked a great victory.

Here, a man took a stand. He'd not be pushed around any more. Yes, it was only a plot of land with a pea patch. Sure, many might say, "Why risk your life Shammah? It's only a pea patch!" They were right. It was only a pea patch. But it was... his pea patch. And when something is yours and you have very little else... no matter how seemingly insignificant it might seem. It's worth fighting and dying for.

I know that it's only a beard. But... it is my beard. And I refuse to surrender to the bullying, slander, character assassination, and pressure to become subjugated to the unbiblical standard of overreaching, and spiritually abusive, human authority.

And if having something as small an issue as a beard makes me an outcast... if having a beard makes my church reject me... if having a beard makes them treat me like a second class citizen in the church... then it isn't me who has the big problem with this little ol' beard. It's... them.

Sometimes you have to take a stand and defend your pea patch.

Well, I guess you know will have a bit more charity for those who keep standards.

:)

[Aquila]

There is nothing in the Bible requiring that men have beards, nor anything requiring that men have shaved faces. Both standards are extra-biblical traditions of men that are taught as doctrines.

[Evang.Benincasa]

There is nothing in the Bible requiring that men have beards, nor anything requiring that men have shaved faces. Both standards are extra-biblical traditions of men that are taught as doctrines.


Do you understand that I don't have to wear a beard right?

[Amanah]

Do you understand that I don't have to wear a beard right?

you are one of the elders, I imagine you could grow a beard if you wanted.

[Evang.Benincasa]

you are one of the elders, I imagine you could grow a beard if you wanted.

But I don't want to wear a beard. When I shaved mine off, I also cut my hair. My hair was long, my beard was long. When my life changed that changed also. My friend Slick use to keep his left overs in his beard, from everytime he ate. He also never cleaned out the bugs that would splatter from the ride.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Amen! And GOD created and designed the beard to be on a mans face. They are fighting against God!

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/_xORg3JKr7v4/SvzCuREozbI/AAAAAAAABbI/cha4kqfuhXg/s320/StellaMacGregor.jpg

I think she might feel a preach coming on!

[Aquila]

Do you understand that I don't have to wear a beard right?

Yep. It's entirely up to you. And if anyone were to sanction you over shaving, they'd be out of the book. And, vice versa.

[Aquila]

But I don't want to wear a beard. When I shaved mine off, I also cut my hair. My hair was long, my beard was long. When my life changed that changed also. My friend Slick use to keep his left overs in his beard, from everytime he ate. He also never cleaned out the bugs that would splatter from the ride.

Lol.

[Evang.Benincasa]

https://pics.me.me/growing-a-beard-unleashes-charles-manson-before-beard-happy-productive-member-27279239.png

[1ofthechosen]

If you want a beard grow one, if you don't shave it off!! Don't try to force your views on the church, get behind the man of God, or find one you can get behind. If you can't get behind anyone, the problem is with you, not with them! Considering all the stuff going on in life, and the thread about is beards sin going for 40 pages is crazy. I'm literally Laughing out loud at the irony of this. I just want to put people in rememberance of 1 Samuel 15:22-23 "And Samuel said, Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. [23] For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry."
It's not directed towards anyone it's just a general statement. If doesn't apply let it fly, if the shoe fits then wear it! It's not a sin to have a beard but it is witchcraft to rebel, and idolatry to be stubborn towards God rule. It all comes in the attitude all of this is done in. But this a very touchy subject and I believe it deserves some prayer and supplication. That's my last two cents on this situation though!! Just I am floored by the response of such a miniscule topic!!

[Michael The Disciple]

Its more clear than ever after this thread that the Apostolic Churches which hold this pitiful teaching have little concern for truth. They talk about the Trins not loving the truth being cast into the fires of Hell for billions and trillions of years. Yet when confronted over their false doctrines like preaching against beards for no reason except their personal enjoyment it brings out the fact they put MENS own thoughts and ideas above Jesus Christ. They only love PART of the truth.

Men are gods to them!

[1ofthechosen]

Men are gods to them!

I just want to ask brother have you yet to receive this promise? What is this scripture saying the shepherd's given according to His heart are, in this new covenant? I embrace it; not man but God. I've received this promise, but if you haven't I could understand. Just when it is fufilled, it would be unprofitable for you to be in a place of reproach against him!!

Jeremiah 3:15-17 "I will give you pastors according to mine heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding. [16] And it shall come to pass, when ye be multiplied and increased in the land, in those days, saith the Lord , they shall say no more, The ark of the covenant of the Lord : neither shall it come to mind: neither shall they remember it; neither shall they visit it ; neither shall that be done any more. [17] At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the Lord; and all the nations shall be gathered unto it, to the name of the Lord, to Jerusalem: neither shall they walk any more after the imagination of their evil heart."

[Evang.Benincasa]

Amen! And GOD created and designed the beard to be on a mans face. They are fighting against God!


Men are gods to them!

https://media.tenor.com/images/1d7be2a6bde81d68277e361e52a0778b/tenor.gif

[Evang.Benincasa]

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSV43esZjEBib_81O15ncC_qI_S-ekj9Jzv_RyieK5a8IV8qUCISA

[Evang.Benincasa]

http://tshirtlegend.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/good-vs-evil-beard-shirt-white.png

[Evang.Benincasa]

https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--M7DCFxzR--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_320/1430850706548513450.png

[Evang.Benincasa]

http://payload464.cargocollective.com/1/18/588676/11582454/Manson-Gilette-ad_1000.jpg

[Tithesmeister]

http://payload464.cargocollective.com/1/18/588676/11582454/Manson-Gilette-ad_1000.jpg

Brother, I’m wondering if you are going to start posting pictures of Jesus and the apostles (with beards of course) and say that they are evil.

Maybe the Lords Supper?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Brother, I’m wondering if you are going to start posting pictures of Jesus and the apostles (with beards of course) and say that they are evil.

Maybe the Lords Supper?

No, I posted a bunch while posting with Aquila on my view. I just saw what Mike the Dee Cipe posted, and thought "Oh well, I guess I wasted my time again." So, i just thought to have some fun.

You guys sure have your hang ups, whether its tithing, beards, couldn't use dice while you were playing Monopoly as a wee child. Whatever the religious trauma, you all want to rip your chest open like Hanuman and show everyone the gushing ecclesiastical blood.

:lol

[Tithesmeister]

No, I posted a bunch while posting with Aquila on my view. I just saw what Mike the Dee Cipe posted, and thought "Oh well, I guess I wasted my time again." So, i just thought to have some fun.

You guys sure have your hang ups, whether its tithing, beards, couldn't use dice while you were playing Monopoly as a wee child. Whatever the religious trauma, you all want to rip your chest open like Hanuman and show everyone the gushing ecclesiastical blood.

:lol

Go on and have your fun. I was trying to insert a little reality into the situation. Since you brought up tithes though, maybe that would be a fitting subject since it dovetails so well with the false doctrine and traditions of men themes.


Just kidding. I wouldn’t want to distract from this thread and rob energy from it.

[FlamingZword]

1 Samuel 15:22-23 "And Samuel said, Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. [23] For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry."
It's not directed towards anyone it's just a general statement. If doesn't apply let it fly, if the shoe fits then wear it! It's not a sin to have a beard but it is witchcraft to rebel, and idolatry to be stubborn towards God rule. It all comes in the attitude all of this is done in. But this a very touchy subject and I believe it deserves some prayer and supplication. That's my last two cents on this situation though!! Just I am floored by the response of such a miniscule topic!!

Yes to obey is better than sacrifices, but it is talking about obeying God, not about obeying some silly man made doctrines. This is an often misused verse to beat down some honest sincere believers into submitting to just about any nonsense that some preachers desires to impose upon the flock.

You say that it is such a minuscule topic, but I think it should not even be a topic at all. There is no reason whatsoever for any preacher to take it upon himself to required that believers shave or that they grow a beard. Once again I repeat it should not even be a topic, not even minuscule.

[Michael The Disciple]

https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--M7DCFxzR--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_320/1430850706548513450.png

That is what they really think. It proves their lack of Biblical knowledge.

[Michael The Disciple]

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSV43esZjEBib_81O15ncC_qI_S-ekj9Jzv_RyieK5a8IV8qUCISA

And proves our point. The beards standard Pastors think you are evil if you have a beard. This is THE TRUE REASON they preach against them. Dont believe the trite about respectable "platform standards".

[Aquila]

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSV43esZjEBib_81O15ncC_qI_S-ekj9Jzv_RyieK5a8IV8qUCISA

Well then, that settles it! :lol

[Aquila]

No, I posted a bunch while posting with Aquila on my view. I just saw what Mike the Dee Cipe posted, and thought "Oh well, I guess I wasted my time again." So, i just thought to have some fun.

You guys sure have your hang ups, whether its tithing, beards, couldn't use dice while you were playing Monopoly as a wee child. Whatever the religious trauma, you all want to rip your chest open like Hanuman and show everyone the gushing ecclesiastical blood.

:lol

"couldn't use dice while you were playing Monopoly as a wee child"??? :lol

[Evang.Benincasa]

That is what they really think. It proves their lack of Biblical knowledge.

Lighten up, the guys are Trekkies :lol

[Evang.Benincasa]

"couldn't use dice while you were playing Monopoly as a wee child"??? :lol

:lol

[Evang.Benincasa]

And proves our point. The beards standard Pastors think you are evil if you have a beard. This is THE TRUE REASON they preach against them. Dont believe the trite about respectable "platform standards".

Get some sleep bro, :heeheehee

No Trekkies think you are evil if you have a beard (unless they are into star wars also then you are a Jedi). This is TRUE reason you need to find a new mattress, where a blinder to sleep, with earplugs to get some rest. Instead of using them to read this thread. Because you obviously didn't read anything I posted with Aquila concerning the subject. So, get off it already. If people don't want anyone wearing beards on their platform who cares, if a church group wants everyone to wear a beard who cares. What was that you posted about God creating a beard for man's face, so if you shaved it off you were fighting God? You were joking right? That's how I took it. But just like the stupid memes I posted, it was humor. Yet, you took that as an opportunity to say that we all think beards are evil? Mike, travel around the United States at least, and get off social media.

[Aquila]

Yes to obey is better than sacrifices, but it is talking about obeying God, not about obeying some silly man made doctrines. This is an often misused verse to beat down some honest sincere believers into submitting to just about any nonsense that some preachers desires to impose upon the flock.

So true. In the church I was saved in, you had to let the pastor know when you were going on vacation (not just those serving, but everyone), you had to let the pastor know if you were planning on buying a car, if you planned on moving, even if it were closer to church. Those in lay ministry in any department of the church had to have BeSafe Online installed, with the Pastor and your C20 (Captain of 20) programmed to receive email updates on all your websites and internet activity. When we got married, there was a young marrieds group and they even broke down what was "appropriate" in the marriage bed with your spouse. There was even a standard against motorcycles! That's right, you were in "rebellion to this pulpit", if you owned a motorcycle. In addition:

-No shorts on men.
-No pants on women (not even pajama pants).
-No short sleeves, everything had to be at least 3/4 length.
-Blouse neckline had to be above the collar bone.
-Skirts had to be two inches above the ankle or mid-shin.
-Women were discouraged from wearing red, especially on he platform.
-No cutting or trimming the hair for women.
-Men had to have their hair off the collar and off the ears.
-Men were not permitted to have facial hair.
-Absolutely no jewelry, not even wedding bands (only backslidden charismatic churches had wedding bands).
-Sports. We originally were told, no secular sports. And so we got involved in a Christian softball league. Well, there was the traditional "confrontation" and dust kicking on the field, and the Pastor prohibited all sports, period.
-No television in the home. Monitors were originally prohibited by the Sr. Pastor also, but the his son, the Pastor, lightened up on that standard as his father grew older.
-No secular radio entertainment.
-One had to attend every time the doors were open for service. All lay ministers had to not only attend services, but also attend all prayer meetings, etc.
-No smoking.
-No alcohol.
-All medication had to be discussed with the Sr. Pastor.

And the list could go on and on.

And it was counted as "sin" if you violated a single one of these standards because to violate any of these standards was seen as "rebellion against this pulpit".

Now, I loved Sr. Pastor Shearer dearly on a personal level. His humility and weeping over souls and the need for holiness was very sensitive, inspiring, and intimate. You rarely had a dry eye. He believed that if a man couldn't weep, he wasn't broken. As time passed, I began to learn more and more of the Bible. I realized that many of these standards were indeed dictated by the pulpit, not by the Word of God. That troubled me, but I remained submitted to the Sr. Pastor. I truly loved him. When he passed things changed. Instead of a weeping Sr. Pastor pleading for us to seek holiness... there was a shrill scream, and the pounding of an iron fist, demanding obedience to the standards or else.

I realized, I can't love and obey a pastor legislating from the pulpit... and then read God's own Word and see that no such standard existed in Scripture. I was torn between two masters... a man... and Jesus. This caused considerable frustration and undermined my family's trust in spiritual leadership. I caught myself explaining, "The Bible says... but Pastor says." The rest is history.

My point is that one cannot have two masters. Eventually, one will choose either the traditions of man or the Word of God, hating the other. As a result, brethren on opposite sides of this issue will not understand one another. Because each will view the other as being in a state of spiritual rebellion and pride.

You say that it is such a minuscule topic, but I think it should not even be a topic at all. There is no reason whatsoever for any preacher to take it upon himself to required that believers shave or that they grow a beard. Once again I repeat it should not even be a topic, not even minuscule.

I agree. It shouldn't even be a topic at all.

[Evang.Benincasa]

http://viralviralvideos.com/wp-content/uploads/GIF/2014/09/There-are-no-rules-GIF.gif

[Evang.Benincasa]

Yes to obey is better than sacrifices, but it is talking about obeying God, not about obeying some silly man made doctrines. This is an often misused verse to beat down some honest sincere believers into submitting to just about any nonsense that some preachers desires to impose upon the flock.

You say that it is such a minuscule topic, but I think it should not even be a topic at all. There is no reason whatsoever for any preacher to take it upon himself to required that believers shave or that they grow a beard. Once again I repeat it should not even be a topic, not even minuscule.

Bro, the preacher who wants the men in his congregation to grow beards don't just tell them to do it. He has an argument. Just like you have an argument to remove the traditional wording of Matthew 28:19. So, you just can't say with a broad brush they have no reason.

[Aquila]

I was looking up artistic depictions of Jesus. All have beards. But, most are unbiblical, depicting Jesus with long flowing locks of hair. So far, I keep running into this picture below... it seems more biblical than the long haired hippie Jesus I see all over the net:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/93/a7/ac/93a7ace2d73cdbeb1aebca78b05e43fc.jpg

[Aquila]

Imagine standing before this Judge... and reliving every word you've spoken when you've mocked, degraded, condemned, castigated, or segregated sincere and devout men with beards in the name of a tradition of man...

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/52/f8/b4/52f8b439a0fa6cc0a1fe641091e0a5fc.jpg

[Amanah]

Imagine standing before this Judge... and reliving every word you've spoken when you've mocked, degraded, condemned, castigated, or segregated sincere and devout men with beards in the name of a tradition of man...

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/52/f8/b4/52f8b439a0fa6cc0a1fe641091e0a5fc.jpg

what if you did none of that, but simply requested that men who sit on the platform be clean shaven?

[Aquila]

what if you did none of that, but simply requested that men who sit on the platform be clean shaven?

That would mean that Jesus was never welcome on that platform. Would it not?

[Amanah]

That would mean that Jesus was never welcome on that platform. Would it not?

I have seen clean shaven men on the platform greatly used of God, so I would have to say you are incorrect.

[Michael The Disciple]

Dom,

Did you take it personally? Heres who it was meant for.

The beards standard Pastors think you are evil if you have a beard.

I recognize you said it was unbiblical to preach it. You just did it because your Elder friend asked you to.

[aegsm76]

Imagine standing before this Judge... and reliving every word you've spoken when you've mocked, degraded, condemned, castigated, or segregated sincere and devout men wearing dresses in the name of a tradition of man...

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/52/f8/b4/52f8b439a0fa6cc0a1fe641091e0a5fc.jpg


I fixed it for you.

[Amanah]

You talk about four distinct beard periods throughout history. What are they?

Well, you get shaving established as a norm by Alexander the Great, [which continued] in the Greek Hellenistic period. And then you have a first beard movement in the 2nd Century under Emperor Hadrian, who was the leader of the Roman world at the time, and so he grew a beard and established a new standard. Very deliberately. It was absolutely an intentional statement about himself and true manliness. And then you have, in the Middle Ages, kings and knights favoring beards, particularly in the middle of the Middle Ages. And then in the Renaissance they come back again, in the 1500s. That's the third beard movement. And then finally one more time in the late 19th Century that we're all familiar with.

What I'm curious about is, why shaving in the first place? People talk about beards being an active decision a man makes: "Why do you have a beard?" It seems to me it's weird to not have a beard.

Your point is very well taken because it precisely indicates what I was saying in that we treat shaving as the norm, as if it weren't a decision. But of course it is a decision, as you say. But, it's so established in our culture that that's the norm that we don't think of it as a decision. But it really was Alexander the Great who did it and made the decision as it were. What he did at the time sort of established it as a higher form of manliness that men can aspire to. And for him, personally, it meant, and for the elite Greek men of the time, it meant a higher level of manliness—closer to the gods than ordinary manliness.

And this was because the gods were often depicted as being clean-shaven?

Yes, exactly. It was this youthful, eternal immortality kind of idea. And you still hear that today in the 21st Century, or 20th Century especially. You shave and it makes you look younger, more vital, energetic. Athletes, at least in the past, not only did they shave their faces but their body hair as well, to show their muscles, but also to make them look young. So that's part of it. [B]But the other thing is that shaving seems to suggest that you are a refined and cultivated person who has transcended your natural animal aspect. So it ties it with sort of being a higher-level man in the sense of being civilized.


How would you characterize the current beard moment? I have a big beard myself. It seems to me there's three stereotypical reactions to people having a beard now: You're either a hipster, a redneck, or a "terrorist." I can't tell you how many times people have asked me if I'm joining ISIS with this beard. Do those three options ring true to your sense?

Then there are religious beards too as you mentioned; throw that into the pile. I think we're at a moment, once again like in other beard movements, where men are rethinking what it is to be a man, and how to represent oneself. And of course our society is so much more divided than societies in the past. We don't have a single cultural authority like a king or emperor. There's no body or group that defines masculinity for everybody. What that means is there are a wide range of different approaches. But I do think, like other beard movements, we are rethinking masculinity. And gender in general is kind of up for grabs, being redefined in lots of ways. I think it makes sense that men would at least consider the possibility of facial hair as a way to think about the nature of manhood. It is a reorientation, again, toward the natural. At least as a starting point for the whole idea of what is a man. Especially when so many people are questioning that.

To refine that a little further, in my last chapter, I talk about the notion of autonomy, the freedom to make decisions for yourself. And I think that for a lot of men that's got to be an important piece of what it means to be a man today, or maybe just a human being. But for men in particular, "How am I an autonomous being who has my own choices to make?" One of the ways to show you have personal choice is to have some facial hair, and move away from the older expectations, and the corporate expectations, of shaving. I always argue that the first people who grow beards are the people who can. Because there are still lots of rules and demands made on people that you can't have a beard. So the first thing it shows is that you're your own man, and I think men are interested in that.





https://www.esquire.com/style/grooming/q-and-a/a41359/of-beards-and-men/

[Aquila]

I have seen clean shaven men on the platform greatly used of God, so I would have to say you are incorrect.

Miracles, inspiring preaching, being exemplary people, moves of God... all are not evidence of salvation. We see these things among Trinitarians too. Only those who abide in the Word are saved. We are warned not to take away from, nor add unto, the Word. Teaching a tradition of man over the Word of God is false doctrine.

The issue deepens...

There is absolutely no biblical precedent for denying men their calling in Christ Jesus on account of a beard or facial hair. Such a standard has no biblical merit, and elevates man's opinion above God's Word.

Jesus warns of this kind of thinking when addressing the issue of the Pharisees and all their man made traditions:

Matthew 23:4-5 King James Version (KJV)
4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.
5 But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,

Mark 7:9-13 King James Version (KJV)
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Matthew 23:15
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

Matthew 15:9
But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Mark 7:7
Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Titus 1:14
Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.

Romans 16:17 King James Version (KJV)
17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

Dividing the body and having partiality or personal favoritism is a sin:

1 Corinthians 1:10-13 King James Version (KJV)
10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

1 Corinthians 3:3 King James Version (KJV)
3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?

1 Corinthians 11:18 King James Version (KJV)
18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.

James 2:1 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
1 My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism.

Please understand, those who would require beards to serve on the platform would be guilty of the same error.

[Aquila]

You talk about four distinct beard periods throughout history. What are they?

Well, you get shaving established as a norm by Alexander the Great, [which continued] in the Greek Hellenistic period. And then you have a first beard movement in the 2nd Century under Emperor Hadrian, who was the leader of the Roman world at the time, and so he grew a beard and established a new standard.
https://www.esquire.com/style/grooming/q-and-a/a41359/of-beards-and-men/

So, now we follow Alexander or Hadrian? We do not take our queues from the world. And, my God in Heaven, definitely not Esquire Magazine.

The ultimate question is - Is there Bible/Scripture/Word for such a standard? The answer is either yes, or it is no.

[Tithesmeister]

Men are gods to them!


I must confess that I do not wear a beard. I shave nearly every day. But the issue to me is that the doctrine is not in harmony with the scripture. If Jesus did wear a beard, which seems to be the consensus, and the apostles did, which seems to be the case, why are we as Apostolics preaching against them?

The words of the Disciple above take on a very real meaning when we would rather have respect for the words of men, than the example of Jesus. It has been referenced several times here, but is it not significant that if Jesus showed up in our services (in the flesh) that He would not be allowed on the platform? He really would be watched closely, not in a reverent way, but out of a suspicion for His lack of Spirituality. No one in our ranks would believe that it was Him. That would be evident just because He was wearing a beard. Surely Jesus would never do such a thing.

Is the regard for the words of men above the example of Jesus not a pretty solid case for idolatry?

Maybe men ARE gods to them!

[Aquila]

If a church forbids those with beards on their platform... by their own words, Christ isn't welcome, unless they can show Scripture indicating that Jesus is now clean shaven.

Matthew 12:36
But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.

There is no arbitrary idle word. Such a "standard" will be dealt back upon them, but only in the context of reality. They will see how many ministries they've prevented from being birthed. How many souls might have been saved had they not aborted the ministries of bearded men. And they will stare into the eyes of a bearded Judge. And hear their own standard echoing in their ears... "Beards are not permitted on this platform.", as their bearded Judge turns to them with tear filled eyes saying, "My. How unfortunate."

[Amanah]

The article I linked show the cultural reasons for and against beards. It helps explain why people feel they way they do about beards.

[Aquila]

I must confess that I do not wear a beard. I shave nearly every day. But the issue to me is that the doctrine is not in harmony with the scripture. If Jesus did wear a beard, which seems to be the consensus, and the apostles did, which seems to be the case, why are we as Apostolics preaching against them?

The words of the Disciple above take on a very real meaning when we would rather have respect for the words of men, than the example of Jesus. It has been referenced several times here, but is it not significant that if Jesus showed up in our services (in the flesh) that He would not be allowed on the platform? He really would be watched closely, not in a reverent way, but out of a suspicion for His lack of Spirituality. No one in our ranks would believe that it was Him. That would be evident just because He was wearing a beard. Surely Jesus would never do such a thing.

Is the regard for the words of men above the example of Jesus not a pretty solid case for idolatry?

Maybe men ARE gods to them!

It isn't a sin to be clean shaven. Nor is it a sin to have a beard.

To condemn a man who is bearded or clean shaven, or to divide the body, showing personal favoritism is not of God.

In a true and biblical Apostolic church... it wouldn't matter if one shaves or not.

And if one believes in keeping the Torah, then we have an issue. Because then there would be Scripture that would indeed encourage wearing a beard over being clean shaven.

[Aquila]

I know churches that will raise a bigger fuss about allowing a man with a beard on their platform than allowing a man who is divorced to be their pastor.

And frankly, there is Scripture that could be interpreted to prohibit divorcees from serving as elders or deacons. But there is absolutely NO Scripture to justify limitation or condemnation upon men with facial hair.

[Aquila]

The article I linked show the cultural reasons for and against beards. It helps explain why people feel they way they do about beards.

But "feelz" and cultural norms don't mean a hill of beans. Is it in the B-I-B-L-E to limit or condemn men with or without facial hair in the body of Christ?

[Aquila]

Some men have rather severe reactions to shaving. They have to take special measures to try to avoid serious pseudofolliculitis barbae. And for some, even those special measures don't always prevent the rather irritating, and often painful, skin condition. Many men with severe conditions are prone to infection. Dermatologists state that the most effective way of preventing such a condition is to... grow a beard.

http://www.operationalmedicine.org/ed2/GMOManual/clinical/Dermatology/pfb1500.jpg

It's a real shame when a man would be disqualified from being on the platform of a church because he has chosen to grow a beard on account of not wanting to deal with such a skin condition.

[Aquila]

The problems are:

- There is NO Biblical merit to a standard against beards, or a platform standard against beards.

- To embrace such is to elevate the traditions and personal preference of man above Scripture.

- To set such a standard brings undue division within the body.

- To set such a standard shows personal favoritism between brethren within the body.

And to cite Esquire magazine and cultural norms regarding facial hair is to take one's queues from the world, instead of just remaining in the book.

[n david]

But "feelz" and cultural norms don't mean a hill of beans. Is it in the B-I-B-L-E to limit or condemn men with or without facial hair in the body of Christ?
Wow, Aquila. This is pretty significant coming from a guy who typically is all about the feelz and culture. Also interesting the switch from putting more faith in what history and culture says than the Bible. Add to that the change from your usual posts promoting a holiday to condemning the only actual Christian holiday, calling it an abomination. Celebrating the Resurrection an abomination? First time I've heard that one.

[n david]

And to cite Esquire magazine and cultural norms regarding facial hair is to take one's queues from the world, instead of just remaining in the book.
:lol

[n david]

Imagine standing before this Judge... and reliving every word you've spoken when you've mocked, degraded, condemned, castigated, or segregated sincere and devout men with beards in the name of a tradition of man...

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/52/f8/b4/52f8b439a0fa6cc0a1fe641091e0a5fc.jpg

Gimme a break, Aquila. You're assuming this, or any other, picture is accurate?

:laffatu

[n david]

I was looking up artistic depictions of Jesus. All have beards. But, most are unbiblical, depicting Jesus with long flowing locks of hair. So far, I keep running into this picture below... it seems more biblical than the long haired hippie Jesus I see all over the net:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/93/a7/ac/93a7ace2d73cdbeb1aebca78b05e43fc.jpg

Jesus is not homosexual. Most depictions and paintings of him are based on a homosexual model.

Also, he was not white or European.

[n david]

So, now we follow Alexander or Hadrian? We do not take our queues from the world. And, my God in Heaven, definitely not Esquire Magazine.

The ultimate question is - Is there Bible/Scripture/Word for such a standard? The answer is either yes, or it is no.
This is great, coming from a guy who almost always is posting articles, pictures and paintings from history and arguing we need historical proof that the new birth happened through the dark ages or God failed and hell prevailed!

Good grief.

[n david]

The words of the Disciple above take on a very real meaning when we would rather have respect for the words of men, than the example of Jesus. It has been referenced several times here, but is it not significant that if Jesus showed up in our services (in the flesh) that He would not be allowed on the platform? He really would be watched closely, not in a reverent way, but out of a suspicion for His lack of Spirituality. No one in our ranks would believe that it was Him. That would be evident just because He was wearing a beard. Surely Jesus would never do such a thing.
You and the other beardos are assuming Jesus would be wearing a robe and growing a beard today. What evidence do you have of this?

It was Jewish custom to grow a beard in Biblical days, as it was to wear a robe.

I don't not believe, were Jesus to appear in human form again today, he would be rocking a robe and sandals. I doubt he'd have a beard either.

But this argument that, "Jesus wouldn't be welcomed on your platforms" is absurd! Talk about feelz and an emotion-based statement.

[n david]

If a church forbids those with beards on their platform... by their own words, Christ isn't welcome, unless they can show Scripture indicating that Jesus is now clean shaven.
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ2hUPVgrWjI0YY__OanIcpAYBgAzHCf TwEcBc9FU_UoIlcKdsk


they will stare into the eyes of a bearded Judge. And hear their own standard echoing in their ears... "Beards are not permitted on this platform.", as their bearded Judge turns to them with tear filled eyes saying, "My. How unfortunate."
https://media.tenor.com/images/25a679ff036806575beb02b03b439a9c/tenor.gif

[Michael The Disciple]

I must confess that I do not wear a beard. I shave nearly every day. But the issue to me is that the doctrine is not in harmony with the scripture. If Jesus did wear a beard, which seems to be the consensus, and the apostles did, which seems to be the case, why are we as Apostolics preaching against them?

The words of the Disciple above take on a very real meaning when we would rather have respect for the words of men, than the example of Jesus. It has been referenced several times here, but is it not significant that if Jesus showed up in our services (in the flesh) that He would not be allowed on the platform? He really would be watched closely, not in a reverent way, but out of a suspicion for His lack of Spirituality. No one in our ranks would believe that it was Him. That would be evident just because He was wearing a beard. Surely Jesus would never do such a thing.

Is the regard for the words of men above the example of Jesus not a pretty solid case for idolatry?

Maybe men ARE gods to them!

Exactly! Why cant they see this? In their folly they have turned away MULTITUDES of good men, then using them as object lessons on pride and rebellion, and ultimately trillions of years in Hell.

And then how many men with a call to Preach are sitting on a pew not able to fulfill their ministry?

Yes these men pleasing "shave only" Pastors will give an account. What is needed is for one powerful Pastor or Evangelist or Prophet to stand up publickly and call out their false teaching! I dont believe it would take long if someone would lead the way!

[Tithesmeister]

Jesus is not homosexual. Most depictions and paintings of him are based on a homosexual model.

Also, he was not white or European.

Brother, I'd like to ask you one question. I think we could all agree on your statements above. Jesus was not homosexual, white or European.

The question is did he have a beard.

Do you believe that Jesus had a beard?

I have noticed that you are really good at picking things that are on the periphery of the discussion and trying to deflect to that instead of addressing the issue.

When we were discussing the book of James, you would not address that the leaders were in sin, which James plainly stated. Instead you went off on a tangent about the rich man and the poor man being unsaved, which really was not even the issue. In regards to that discussion;

Did James say that the leaders of the church were sinning by showing favoritism to the rich man and discriminating against the poor man?

If you could just answer with yes or no to these two questions, and forego all the obfuscating and deflecting, I would really appreciate it. Otherwise I question if you are more interested in arriving at the truth, or winning an argument.

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Aquila

they will stare into the eyes of a bearded Judge. And hear their own standard echoing in their ears... "Beards are not permitted on this platform.", as their bearded Judge turns to them with tear filled eyes saying, "My. How unfortunate."

It could well be it will bring an angry roar from the Lion Of Judah!

[Aquila]

Wow, Aquila. This is pretty significant coming from a guy who typically is all about the feelz and culture. Also interesting the switch from putting more faith in what history and culture says than the Bible. Add to that the change from your usual posts promoting a holiday to condemning the only actual Christian holiday, calling it an abomination. Celebrating the Resurrection an abomination? First time I've heard that one.

Well, on the flip side, I find it ironic how I was raked across the coals about "feelz", cultural considerations, history, etc. for quite a while... and now once I choose to go strictly by the book... I'm finding that a number of detractors are living by standards based on "feelz", cultural considerations, and history.

You're right. There is some irony here. lol

As for holidays... again, strictly by the book...

"Easter" as we know it isn't a "Christian" holiday.

Fixing the date on which the Resurrection of Jesus was to be observed and celebrated triggered a major controversy in early Christianity in which an Eastern and a Western position can be distinguished. The dispute, known as the Paschal controversies, was not definitively resolved until the 8th century. In Asia Minor, Christians observed the day of the Crucifixion on the same day that Jews celebrated Passover—that is, on the 14th day of the first full moon of spring, 14 Nisan (see Jewish calendar). The Resurrection, then, was observed two days later, on 16 Nisan, regardless of the day of the week. In the West the Resurrection of Jesus was celebrated on the first day of the week, Sunday, when Jesus had risen from the dead. Consequently, Easter was always celebrated on the first Sunday after the 14th day of the month of Nisan. Increasingly, the churches opted for the Sunday celebration, and the Quartodecimans (“14th day” proponents) remained a minority. The Council of Nicaea in 325 decreed that Easter should be observed on the first Sunday following the first full moon after the spring equinox (March 21). Easter, therefore, can fall on any Sunday between March 22 and April 25.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Easter-holiday

The same reprobates that brought us the Trinity, brought us the "Easter" celebration as we know it. In addition, the rabbits, colored eggs, candies, cakes, buns, Sunrise services, are all commercialized aspects of paganism injected into the observance in our culture.

I'm not saying that it wrong to set aside a time to remember the resurrection of Christ. Esaias remembers Christ's resurrection by observing a "Christianized" Passover. I see no issue with that. But Easter as we know it today... it's an abomination.

And the standards against beards... are traditions of men elevated above the Word of God.

[Aquila]

Gimme a break, Aquila. You're assuming this, or any other, picture is accurate?

:laffatu

I don't have a single Scripture stating that the bodily resurrected Christ is now licensed with the UPCI and clean shaven so that He can be permitted on their platforms. :heeheehee

[Michael The Disciple]

N David

It was Jewish custom to grow a beard in Biblical days, as it was to wear a robe.

And where did that custom come from?

It came from THE LORD GOD ALMIGHTY!

Leviticus 19:27

You shall not round the corners of your heards neither shalt thou MAR THE CORNERS OF YOUR BEARDS.

Now you know where the CUSTOM came from.

[Aquila]

Jesus is not homosexual. Most depictions and paintings of him are based on a homosexual model.

Also, he was not white or European.

I think the picture in question should have darker skin. But the nose, the features, the hair... it is more first century Jew than most depictions.

Here's another depiction I found striking (attached), if only the hair wasn't so long, I think it would be more accurate than the images with long flowing locks of womanly hair.

[Aquila]

This is great, coming from a guy who almost always is posting articles, pictures and paintings from history and arguing we need historical proof that the new birth happened through the dark ages or God failed and hell prevailed!

Good grief.

I couldn't help but notice that you couldn't contradict me. :heeheehee

[Aquila]

You and the other beardos are assuming Jesus would be wearing a robe and growing a beard today. What evidence do you have of this?

It was Jewish custom to grow a beard in Biblical days, as it was to wear a robe.

I don't not believe, were Jesus to appear in human form again today, he would be rocking a robe and sandals. I doubt he'd have a beard either.

But this argument that, "Jesus wouldn't be welcomed on your platforms" is absurd! Talk about feelz and an emotion-based statement.

It shouldn't matter if Jesus appeared today with a beard or not. I wouldn't care one way or another. However, if He did appear with a beard... face it, He'd definitely not be welcomed on most Apostolic platforms.

It's an analytical fact based on the standards those folks hold. If there's any "feelze" about it... it's you experiencing cognitive dissonance because you know it would indeed be the truth. :thumbsup

[Aquila]

Exactly! Why cant they see this? In their folly they have turned away MULTITUDES of good men, then using them as object lessons on pride and rebellion, and ultimately trillions of years in Hell.

And then how many men with a call to Preach are sitting on a pew not able to fulfill their ministry?

Yes these men pleasing "shave only" Pastors will give an account. What is needed is for one powerful Pastor or Evangelist or Prophet to stand up publickly and call out their false teaching! I dont believe it would take long if someone would lead the way!

They'd reject and condemn such a man, Michael. And then they'd slap each other on the backs, and give one another high fives, for their witty insults and one liners that discredit him. You can't put the new wine into old wine skins.

Their entire system is firmly in the grasp of human tradition. It has to be condemned, rejected, along with those who are enslaved and who are vested to its man made doctrines and identity. They've chosen tradition over Jesus. So, abandon them to it. Let them have all the traditions of man they could ever want or ask for... until it overflows, spewing from their nostrils in the judgment. They want the traditions of men... let them have them. But never cease to remind them, they are out of the book, and judgment is coming.

Then, such a man or prophet would need to have able men form a new fellowship wherein such unbiblical standards do not exist. Perhaps an entire overhaul on what it means to be, "Apostolic". A true, Bible based, Apostolic Church.

[Aquila]

And where did that custom come from?

It came from THE LORD GOD ALMIGHTY!

Leviticus 19:27

You shall not round the corners of your heards neither shalt thou MAR THE CORNERS OF YOUR BEARDS.

Now you know where the CUSTOM came from.

Ouch.

Clearly their LORD isn't the same LORD who gave us Leviticus 19:27. :heeheehee

[Tithesmeister]

You and the other beardos are assuming Jesus would be wearing a robe and growing a beard today. What evidence do you have of this?

It was Jewish custom to grow a beard in Biblical days, as it was to wear a robe.

I don't not believe, were Jesus to appear in human form again today, he would be rocking a robe and sandals. I doubt he'd have a beard either.

But this argument that, "Jesus wouldn't be welcomed on your platforms" is absurd! Talk about feelz and an emotion-based statement.

See what I mean? I am, according to you a beardo? I, who am clean-shaven as of six thirty this morning am a beardo. It seems like I'm dealing with a third grader here. Are you more interested in learning something, or in insulting somebody?

You saying I am a beardo or that I am dumb is a greater reflection of your own level of maturity than it is my level of intelligence or my weirdness.

Brother, if I am so dumb, please teach me. Help me know all of the great things that you have learned.

Meanwhile, set an example for me on showing the fruits of the Spirit. What I don't want to learn is how to tear down my brother and cannibalize each other. How does that edify, or who does that edify?

[n david]

Brother, I'd like to ask you one question. I think we could all agree on your statements above. Jesus was not homosexual, white or European.

The question is did he have a beard.

Do you believe that Jesus had a beard?
Did Jesus have a beard? Was he a Jew? Obviously, yes, because it was Jewish custom to grow a beard.

I have noticed that you are really good at picking things that are on the periphery of the discussion and trying to deflect to that instead of addressing the issue.
Untrue, but that's your opinion.

When we were discussing the book of James, you would not address that the leaders were in sin, which James plainly stated. Instead you went off on a tangent about the rich man and the poor man being unsaved, which really was not even the issue.
Aquila wanted to claim the rich/poor were saved and was trying to liken it to him wearing a beard being discriminated against by other brothers.

Also, them not being saved is a key part of the issue. This is about the availability of the Gospel to all people, not based on whether they are poor or rich.

"Hold not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons."

You claim I'm deflecting when really I'm looking at the complete context of what's written, instead of cherry picking a single sentence to try and prove a point and win an argument. You say that's what I'm doing. I'm not. In actuality, you and Aquila are ignoring context and focusing on one or two sentences to try and claim someone is sinning for denying the pulpit to a bearded man.

In regards to that discussion;

Did James say that the leaders of the church were sinning by showing favoritism to the rich man and discriminating against the poor man?
CONTEXT matters!

I am NOT going to play your game. You can claim I'm deflecting or whatever you want. But I refuse to answer until you acknowledge the full context of the passage and stop cherry picking a couple verses.

[Aquila]

Tithesmeister,

Ndavid is incapable of seeing that James' point was about showing favoritism. To Ndavid, it's all about money, because James' example featured a poor brother and a rich brother. The overall point is lost on Ndavid. As the typical legalist, praising the traditions of man, he'll argue to the death that all the passage tells us is not to be partial between rich and poor. That way, he feels justified in being partial or discriminatory in any other fashion he wants.

We, and any honest reader, can see that James' example of a hypothetical rich vs. poor partiality was only one example to illustrate a greater point... don't be partial and show favoritism. Treat all men equally, loving your neighbor as yourself.

Maybe if those smoothies taught the Word more than their traditions of men... Ndavid would see the greater point James' was making.

And Ndavid doesn't realize, this isn't a game. And he refuses to play, because he knows he'll lose. Because he has no BOOK for his love of a policy that shows partiality and favoritism over something that shouldn't even be an issue to begin with.

[n david]

It shouldn't matter if Jesus appeared today with a beard or not. I wouldn't care one way or another.
You obviously do care, since you've been posting pictures of some guys you believe Jesus looked like.

[Aquila]

You obviously do care, since you've been posting pictures of some guys you believe Jesus looked like.

Honestly, I don't care.

But I know a group of men pleasers and legalists who would care if He did come back with a beard. :heeheehee

[n david]

Tithesmeister,

Ndavid is incapable of seeing that James' point was about showing favoritism. To Ndavid, it's all about money, because James' example featured a poor brother and a rich brother. The overall point is lost on Ndavid. As the typical legalist, praising the traditions of man, he'll argue to the death that all the passage tells us is not to be partial between rich and poor. That way, he feels justified in being partial or discriminatory in any other fashion he wants.

We, and any honest reader, can see that James' example of a hypothetical rich vs. poor partiality was only one example to illustrate a greater point... don't be partial and show favoritism. Treat all men equally, loving your neighbor as yourself.

Maybe if those smoothies taught the Word more than their traditions of men... Ndavid would see the greater point James' was making.

And Ndavid doesn't realize, this isn't a game. And he refuses to play, because he knows he'll lose.

HA! You're something else Aquila.

Cherry picking verses, ignoring context, but you want to claim I'm not understanding the passage.

"Hold not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons."

The first holds the key.

[Aquila]

Ndavid, do you think I'd refuse you to serve on a platform with me, just because you're clean shaven???

I hope you realize that I wouldn't dare dream of doing that.

But you'd do that... to me and others who have facial hair.

That's a real problem my brother.

[Aquila]

"Hold not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons."

....unless they have a beard?

[n david]

Honestly, I don't care.

But I know a group of men pleasers and legalists who would care if He did come back with a beard. :heeheehee

Obviously you missed the part where I was on staff and ministry almost a decade of a church which allowed bearded men in its ministry and on the platform.

I have no personal issue against beards. My issue is with guys who condemn a Pastor for being against it, and who would foster and foment rebellion against church leaders over it.

[Tithesmeister]

Did Jesus have a beard? Was he a Jew? Obviously, yes, because it was Jewish custom to grow a beard.


Untrue, but that's your opinion.


Aquila wanted to claim the rich/poor were saved and was trying to liken it to him wearing a beard being discriminated against by other brothers.

Also, them not being saved is a key part of the issue. This is about the availability of the Gospel to all people, not based on whether they are poor or rich.

"Hold not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons."

You claim I'm deflecting when really I'm looking at the complete context of what's written, instead of cherry picking a single sentence to try and prove a point and win an argument. You say that's what I'm doing. I'm not. In actuality, you and Aquila are ignoring context and focusing on one or two sentences to try and claim someone is sinning for denying the pulpit to a bearded man.


CONTEXT matters!

I am NOT going to play your game. You can claim I'm deflecting or whatever you want. But I refuse to answer until you acknowledge the full context of the passage and stop cherry picking a couple verses.

Well, you did answer one out of two. That is fifty percent. Your grade is improving.

I absolutely agree that context matters, that is why I was trying to explain to you who the sinner was in James chapter two.

Let me try again.

In the interest of establishing the context (because we agree that context is important) of James chapter two, and letting the main thing, be the main thing . . .

Who does James say is sinning?

It is NOT a trick question!

[n david]

Ndavid, do you think I'd refuse you to serve on a platform with me, just because you're clean shaven???

I hope you realize that I wouldn't dare dream of doing that.

But you'd do that... to me and others who have facial hair.

That's a real problem my brother.
Aquila, I would never attend your church. You believe it's okay to use a red solo cup to baptize someone. You attended and were part of a home group who don't believe the new birth or the oneness of God. So pardon if I offend you, but I wouldn't attend your church.

Also, you assume too much. At the church where I was the worship leader and responsible to staff and lead the singers and musicians -- the keyboard player had a beard, as did the bass player. One of the drummers couldn't grow a beard, but had a thin mustache and goatee. I even wore a beard for a while.

I personally don't have an issue with beards. My issue is with guys like you who want to stir up rebellion against a Pastor and church over a beard.

[Aquila]

Obviously you missed the part where I was on staff and ministry almost a decade of a church which allowed bearded men in its ministry and on the platform.

Does your current church show partiality over beards?

I have no personal issue against beards. My issue is with guys who ........ a Pastor for being against it, and who would foster and foment rebellion against church leaders over it.

How can one rebel against a standard that doesn't exist in the Bible and even violates the Bible's command not to show partiality within the body??? Those you accuse of "rebellion" are actually fighting to return to the Word and abandon unbiblical traditions of men. They are only rebelling against man, on account of their loyalty to the Word. And, you've obviously chosen what side you're on. They call that being... a man pleaser.

[Aquila]

Aquila, I would never attend your church. You believe it's okay to use a red solo cup to baptize someone. You attended and were part of a home group who don't believe the new birth or the oneness of God. So pardon if I offend you, but I wouldn't attend your church.

I was only illustrating how radical I am about getting people baptized. lol In all honesty, I'd baptize by emersion. If someone was so sick they couldn't be moved, I'd only anoint them with oil in accordance to the Bible's provision for the sick:

James 5:14-15 King James Version (KJV)
14 Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:
15 And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.

Also, you assume too much. At the church where I was the worship leader and responsible to staff and lead the singers and musicians -- the keyboard player had a beard, as did the bass player. One of the drummers couldn't grow a beard, but had a thin mustache and goatee. I even wore a beard for a while.

I personally don't have an issue with beards. My issue is with guys like you who want to stir up rebellion against a Pastor and church over a beard.

You mean, men who stir up rebellion against man made traditions and doctrines that aren't in the Word?

Well, you've chosen your allegiance.

[Steve Epley]

Saved and shaved in 2018!:highfive

[consapente89]

Saved and shaved in 2018!:highfive

:happydance

[Aquila]

Aquila, I would never attend your church. You believe it's okay to use a red solo cup to baptize someone.

For anyone who doubts that I believe in emersion, here's a photo of one of the last baptismal services I attended. We went through the trouble of securing a family's pool to use for baptism. Here's a photo of the occasion. I'm the bearded guy on the right...

[Aquila]

Saved and shaved in 2018!:highfive

There's nothing wrong with shaving.

But, would you doubt one's salvation if they chose not to shave?

[consapente89]

Again, you all that are frothing at the mouth over your right to wear a beard should just wear your beard and forget about it. It won't be the beard that takes you to hell.

[consapente89]

For anyone who doubts that I believe in emersion, here's a photo of one of the last baptismal services I attended. We went through the trouble of securing a family's pool to use for baptism. Here's a photo of the occasion. I'm the bearded guy on the right...

I distinctly remember you making a case for sprinkling and pouring.

[Aquila]

Again, you all that are frothing at the mouth over your right to wear a beard should just wear your beard and forget about it. It won't be the beard that takes you to hell.

No man will ever go to Hell for defending the Word from being trumped by man made traditions and legalisms. :thumbsup

[Aquila]

I distinctly remember you making a case for sprinkling and pouring.

Yes, I illustrated that a case could be made. But I believe in emersion.

[Tithesmeister]

Saved and shaved in 2018!:highfive

I'm sure you can give plenty of scripture too . . .






For the saved part!!!!!!!!!!

[Aquila]

All a single smoothie would have to do is show me a single verse of Scripture condemning facial hair. But they don't have a single Scripture for it. Because it is only a Pharisaical tradition of man, that elevates cultural preferences, and human opinion, over the Word of God.

Smoothies have no BOOK for their position.

[consapente89]

All a single smoothie would have to do is show me a single verse of Scripture condemning facial hair. But they don't have a single Scripture for it. Because it is only a Pharisaical tradition of man, that elevates cultural preferences, and human opinion, over the Word of God.

Not true.

The Bible isn't good enough for you on the New Birth, a lady's uncut hair, fornication, soothsayers or any other issue I've seen you debate on here through the years. IF someone gave you a verse for a clean face, you would insist on a beard. If someone could provide a scriptural requirement for a beard, you would insist on a clean face.

[n david]

I absolutely agree that context matters, that is why I was trying to explain to you who the sinner was in James chapter two.

Let me try again.

In the interest of establishing the context (because we agree that context is important) of James chapter two, and letting the main thing, be the main thing . . .

Who does James say is sinning?

It is NOT a trick question!
"Hold not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons."

James is rebuking the leaders of the assembly, saying they sinned because they were being partial to the rich with the Gospel. Yes, James said these leaders sinned for trying to give respect to the rich man but not offer the same to the poor man.

Verse 9 is a reference to Leviticus 19, "Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.

Looking at context, James is not talking about ministry guidelines. I know you and Aquila are trying to claim this, but this is about the availability and openness of assemblies to all who are unsaved - the rich and the poor. This is not about a set of ministry guidelines.

There were guidelines for priests in the Temple - to the extent that a priest would be disqualified and excluded from serving in the Temple or Tabernacle if he had physical blemishes.

There is nothing wrong with a church or Pastor setting guidelines for ministry. They certainly are not sinning in having these guidelines.

[Tithesmeister]

"Hold not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons."

James is rebuking the leaders of the assembly, saying they sinned because they were being partial to the rich with the Gospel. Yes, James said these leaders sinned for trying to give respect to the rich man but not offer the same to the poor man.

Verse 9 is a reference to Leviticus 19, "Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.

Looking at context, James is not talking about ministry guidelines. I know you and Aquila are trying to claim this, but this is about the availability and openness of assemblies to all who are unsaved - the rich and the poor. This is not about a set of ministry guidelines.

There were guidelines for priests in the Temple - to the extent that a priest would be disqualified and excluded from serving in the Temple or Tabernacle if he had physical blemishes.

There is nothing wrong with a church or Pastor setting guidelines for ministry. They certainly are not sinning in having these guidelines.

Thank you brother for answering. There is hope. I'm not sure about the last statement in your reply, but the good thing is we are making progress. I am not going to call you any names or try to belittle you.

Can't you "feelz" the love?

I pray that you are blessed.

[Aquila]

Not true.

The Bible isn't good enough for you on the New Birth, a lady's uncut hair, fornication, soothsayers or any other issue I've seen you debate on here through the years.

Regarding the New Birth - I've only said that baring a sovereign move of mercy, I don't see how anyone outside of Acts 2:38 can be saved.

Regarding uncut hair on women - I believe the passage is addressing head coverings, not hair.

Regarding Fornication - All sexual activity outside of a biblical covenant is fornication. And given the government's claim of divine right to define marriage, I don't believe Christians should concern their selves with the civil institution. They can seek any civil contract with the government they choose outside of their church blessings or ceremonies. My view is in perfect harmony with a number of conservative sources. Including the Marriage Pledge (https://www.firstthings.com/marriage-pledge)

... "Soothsayers"??? Not sure what you mean by that.

IF someone gave you a verse for a clean face, you would insist on a beard. If someone could provide a scriptural requirement for a beard, you would insist on a clean face.

I guess we'll never know seeing that such a Scripture... DOESN'T exist. :heeheehee

P.S.
I think you meant, "bearded face".

[Aquila]

"Hold not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons."

James is rebuking the leaders of the assembly, saying they sinned because they were being partial to the rich with the Gospel. Yes, James said these leaders sinned for trying to give respect to the rich man but not offer the same to the poor man.

Verse 9 is a reference to Leviticus 19, "Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.

Looking at context, James is not talking about ministry guidelines. I know you and Aquila are trying to claim this, but this is about the availability and openness of assemblies to all who are unsaved - the rich and the poor. This is not about a set of ministry guidelines.

There were guidelines for priests in the Temple - to the extent that a priest would be disqualified and excluded from serving in the Temple or Tabernacle if he had physical blemishes.

There is nothing wrong with a church or Pastor setting guidelines for ministry. They certainly are not sinning in having these guidelines.

"Ministry guidelines"? You mean, the guidelines given in the Bible for elders and deacons aren't good enough??? My Word! :smack

[Aquila]

n David... the Bible is your everything. You need that Word more than the air you breathe. And you think you must add to it as though it is insufficient or incomplete in and of itself? And in addition, you defend the very men who have perpetuated these foolish traditions of man and added to the council of the Holy to the division of the body and the loss of souls? You should tremble and return with bated breathe to that which is the only sure foundation, the Word of God.

You can't straddle the fence.

You are either a man of the Word, or you are not.

[n david]

I was only illustrating how radical I am about getting people baptized.
You call it being radical, what it is is unbiblical.

You mean, men who stir up rebellion against man made traditions and doctrines that aren't in the Word?
I'm talking about self-centered guys who would rather destroy a church and cause division rather than find some other church.

Well, you've chosen your allegiance.
My "allegiance" is doing what the Bible says to do and also use some common decency and integrity.

I've been in ministry with churches who don't allow bearded men on the platform and I've been in ministry with churches who do. I have no issue with beards. I've grown a beard at various times throughout my adult life. However, I respect the Pastor and church enough that I have no issue shaving it off if they don't allow it in ministry.

I've been in ministry with churches who were against television and movies. I believe it's okay to watch tv or movies in moderation. However, while attending a church whose Pastor preached against tv and movies, I did not watch tv and did not go to the movies out of respect to the leadership and the church.

What I don't do and what the Bible calls a sin is for someone to cause division in a church and rebel against the Pastor God put there.

You want to claim Pastors are sinning by not allowing beards on the platform, yet ignore your own sin of strife and rebellion.

Romans 1:29-31 Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, quarreling, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip. 30 They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful. They invent new ways of sinning, and they disobey their parents. 31 They refuse to understand, break their promises, are heartless, and have no mercy.unmerciful:

Galatians 5:19-21 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

[consapente89]

... "Soothsayers"??? Not sure what you mean by that.




I'm referring to your dabbling in occultism and psychic boards and trying to pass it off as prophecy.


Point is...the Bible doesn't mean much to you.

[n david]

"What is causing the quarrels and fights among you? Don’t they come from the evil desires at war within you? You want what you don’t have, so you scheme and kill to get it. You are jealous of what others have, but you can’t get it, so you fight and wage war to take it away from them."

James 4:1,2

[Evang.Benincasa]

I was looking up artistic depictions of Jesus. All have beards. But, most are unbiblical, depicting Jesus with long flowing locks of hair. So far, I keep running into this picture below... it seems more biblical than the long haired hippie Jesus I see all over the net:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/93/a7/ac/93a7ace2d73cdbeb1aebca78b05e43fc.jpg

Jesus is Kenny Loggins?

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/14/d9/b4/14d9b4aad1228701bb3266918d78234f.jpg

[Aquila]

I'm referring to your dabbling in occultism and psychic boards and trying to pass it off as prophecy.

I remember the accusation of dabbling in occultism. But I don't know anything about the occult personally.

[Evang.Benincasa]

"What is causing the quarrels and fights among you? Don’t they come from the evil desires at war within you? You want what you don’t have, so you scheme and kill to get it. You are jealous of what others have, but you can’t get it, so you fight and wage war to take it away from them."

James 4:1,2

:highfive :thumbsup

[n david]

I'm not sure about the last statement in your reply,
You believe Pastors are sinning for having a set of ministry guidelines?

:nah

[n david]

n David... the Bible is your everything. You need that Word more than the air you breathe. And you think you must add to it as though it is insufficient or incomplete in and of itself? And in addition, you defend the very men who have perpetuated these foolish traditions of man and added to the council of the Holy to the division of the body and the loss of souls? You should tremble and return with bated breathe to that which is the only sure foundation, the Word of God.

You can't straddle the fence.

You are either a man of the Word, or you are not.

This is incredible, considering the source!

https://m.popkey.co/18b290/Rk3Xl.gif

[Aquila]

Jesus is Kenny Loggins?

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/14/d9/b4/14d9b4aad1228701bb3266918d78234f.jpg

NOOOOOO!!!!!

:lol

[Aquila]

"What is causing the quarrels and fights among you? Don’t they come from the evil desires at war within you? You want what you don’t have, so you scheme and kill to get it. You are jealous of what others have, but you can’t get it, so you fight and wage war to take it away from them."

James 4:1,2

So, who causes the "quarreling"? Those who are adding to Scripture and enforcing an unbiblical standard that NEVER existed in the church of Scrpiture... or those who are standing for returning to the Word, and arguing that there is no such standard and that this is only a tradition of man that should be abandoned???

Are we to blindly accept any unbiblical tradition of man they wish to set us in bondage to? Or are we to DEFEND the Word of God?

[Evang.Benincasa]

"Hold not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons."

James is rebuking the leaders of the assembly, saying they sinned because they were being partial to the rich with the Gospel. Yes, James said these leaders sinned for trying to give respect to the rich man but not offer the same to the poor man.

Verse 9 is a reference to Leviticus 19, "Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.

Looking at context, James is not talking about ministry guidelines. I know you and Aquila are trying to claim this, but this is about the availability and openness of assemblies to all who are unsaved - the rich and the poor. This is not about a set of ministry guidelines.

There were guidelines for priests in the Temple - to the extent that a priest would be disqualified and excluded from serving in the Temple or Tabernacle if he had physical blemishes.

There is nothing wrong with a church or Pastor setting guidelines for ministry. They certainly are not sinning in having these guidelines.

Wow, is ndavid the only sane person in this thread?

How on earth is what ndavid is saying being twisted to mean that he is advocating spiritual abuse from leadership? You will have guidelines set for you until you are dead. Religious, political, and social. It seems that only in "mainstream Churchness" is where we want no guidelines. A Brother is over a church family and he only wants guys with beards preaching and teaching. Why? Because beards are something that he believes all "men" should have. Therefore he doesn't want any bare faced individuals preaching to his congregation. Guess what? The congregation doesn't what any bare faced preachers preaching to them. Do I think its right or wrong doesn't matter to THEM. Because the guidelines were set, and everyone "enjoys" what they are doing.

[Tithesmeister]

You believe Pastors are sinning for having a set of ministry guidelines?

:nah

They certainly could be.

I guess it depends on whether the guidelines come from the Bible or not.

Did James think it was possible?

Sometimes it comes down to the definition of minister.

Are they servants?

Or are they lords?

1 Peter 5 King James Version (KJV)
5 The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:

2 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;

3 Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being examples to the flock.

This is what I mean.

[Aquila]

You believe Pastors are sinning for having a set of ministry guidelines?

:nah

Ministerial guidelines are fine, as long as those guidelines are predicated upon Scripture. Because if they aren't predicated upon Scripture, we have a word for that... it's called unbiblical. :lol

[consapente89]

n David... the Bible is your everything. You need that Word more than the air you breathe. And you think you must add to it as though it is insufficient or incomplete in and of itself? And in addition, you defend the very men who have perpetuated these foolish traditions of man and added to the council of the Holy to the division of the body and the loss of souls? You should tremble and return with bated breathe to that which is the only sure foundation, the Word of God.

You can't straddle the fence.

You are either a man of the Word, or you are not.

:spit:laffatu

[Aquila]

Wow, is ndavid the only sane person in this thread?

How on earth is what ndavid is saying being twisted to mean that he is advocating spiritual abuse from leadership? You will have guidelines set for you until you are dead. Religious, political, and social. It seems that only in "mainstream Churchness" is where we want no guidelines. A Brother is over a church family and he only wants guys with beards preaching and teaching. Why? Because beards are something that he believes all "men" should have. Therefore he doesn't want any bare faced individuals preaching to his congregation. Guess what? The congregation doesn't what any bare faced preachers preaching to them. Do I think its right or wrong doesn't matter to THEM. Because the guidelines were set, and everyone "enjoys" what they are doing.

We're talking about the Bible elder. Not Omnicorp's code of conduct on appearance.

Do you have any Scripture warranting not allowing those with beards to serve in the church, or to warrant casting them out completely???

[Evang.Benincasa]

n David... the Bible is your everything. You need that Word more than the air you breathe. And you think you must add to it as though it is insufficient or incomplete in and of itself? And in addition, you defend the very men who have perpetuated these foolish traditions of man and added to the council of the Holy to the division of the body and the loss of souls? You should tremble and return with bated breathe to that which is the only sure foundation, the Word of God.

You can't straddle the fence.

You are either a man of the Word, or you are not.

Chris, you obviously aren't considering what ndavid is saying in its context. Chris, make your words soft and sweet, for in some day you may have to eat.

[Evang.Benincasa]

We're talking about the Bible elder. Not Omnicorp's code of conduct on appearance.

Do you have any Scripture warranting not allowing those with beards to serve in the church, or to warrant casting them out completely???

Do you have Bible for not allowing cigarette smokers to not serve in the church?

[n david]

So, who causes the "quarreling"? Those who are adding to Scripture and enforcing an unbiblical standard that NEVER existed in the church of Scrpiture... or those who are standing for the Word and arguing that there is no such standard and that this is only a tradition of man???

Are we to blindly accept any unbiblical tradition of man they wish to set us in bondage to? Or are we to DEFEND the Word of God?

As in every post, story, etc ad infinitum - YOU are right. You know it all. You are the hero. You are the liberator. You are the poor, oppressed beardo on a mission to right the wrong done by Pastors everywhere.

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/WholeShinyDore-max-1mb.gif

[Aquila]

Chris, you obviously aren't considering what ndavid is saying in its context. Chris, make your words soft and sweet, for in some day you may have to eat.

What I'm getting from ndavid is that a pastor can arbitrarily establish any unbiblical standard he desires predicated entirely his personal preferences. And we dare not question him.

Am I mistaken?

[Aquila]

Do you have Bible for not allowing cigarette smokers to not serve in the church?

I wouldn't forbid smokers from serving in the church. I'd admonish that they quit for the sake of their health. Same with those who drink coffee and eat fast food every day.

3 John 2
Beloved, I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth.

[Aquila]

As in every post, story, etc ad infinitum - YOU are right. You know it all. You are the hero. You are the liberator. You are the poor, oppressed beardo on a mission to right the wrong done by Pastors everywhere.

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/WholeShinyDore-max-1mb.gif

I'm still waiting on Scripture, smoothie. :happydance

[n david]

What I'm getting from ndavid is that a pastor can arbitrarily establish any unbiblical standard he desires predicated entirely his personal preferences. And we dare not question him.

Am I mistaken?
You added a bit to it. But yes, a church and its Pastor can establish guidelines for ministry based both on biblical principles and other norms and preferences.

I never said you weren't allowed to question it.

[Michael The Disciple]

You believe Pastors are sinning for having a set of ministry guidelines?

:nah

I believe they are sinning in making a guideline against:

1. Something God created and designed into a man.
2. He commanded his Covenant people to not mar.
3. He himself had in his earthly sojourn.
4. Something his Apostles (Apostolics) had.
5. He never once in scripture changed his mind about it.

So yes a strong case is made that they are in sin over it. And it ABSOLUTELY proves to those outside the Oneness faith that they are not interested in ALL truth. They see Oneness Pastors MAKING UP THEIR OWN LAWS and forcing them on others with NO SCRIPTURAL JUSTIFICATION.

[Michael The Disciple]

Do you have Bible for not allowing cigarette smokers to not serve in the church?

How is that the same when God never commanded men to do it? He is not recorded as doing it?

[Evang.Benincasa]

What I'm getting from ndavid is that a pastor can arbitrarily establish any unbiblical standard he desires predicated entirely his personal preferences. And we dare not question him.

Am I mistaken?

No, no, again no.

Look, ar·bi·trar·i·ly, adverb, on the basis of random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system. 2. without restraint in the use of authority; autocratically.

Why does everything on this forum get filtered through some sort of ecclesiastical spiritual abuse PTSD? Listen, we all didn't get tied up in the pews and get the soles of our feet burned with lit cigarettes. One man didn't come up with the stuff on a whim, be it mandatory beards or no beards. Everyone wanted it! Everyone who walked through the door at any point in time understood what was going on. I know that everyone wants to believe that everyone is a mindless Stepford Wife and at times that is the case. But, at times it isn't the case. People are enjoying themselves, they are living for God with their beards down to their belt buckles or the overalls buttons. It is cool with them who are neophytes because the neophytes first noticed that all the men had beards. Same goes for the no beard church. No one has this stuff sprung on them.

[Evang.Benincasa]

How is that the same when God never commanded men to do it? He is not recorded as doing it?

Where does God command men to wear a beard?

[Evang.Benincasa]

I wouldn't forbid smokers from serving in the church. I'd admonish that they quit for the sake of their health. Same with those who drink coffee and eat fast food every day.

3 John 2
Beloved, I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth.

Health? I know men who smoked cigarettes their whole lives. Everyone is different, and genetics play hard in whether or not you will get ill from chewing or smoking tobacco. Same goes with eating fast food, I know whole families who were raised on 7 eleven food, two sister who were given Slurpees for breakfast since they were 5, and they are in their 30s now. Coffee is hugely a debatable issue, because the arguments run from Dan to Beersheba on that puppy. Anyway, cigarettes in a church family? Anyone in coming into your church who is unchurch would look at your cigarette congregation as having a screw loose. I know churches which have cigarettes buts strewn out front from their smokers corner. Socially unacceptable, smelly, and dirty.

[Aquila]

Where does God command men to wear a beard?

I don't believe the NT requires a beard. Nor does it prohibit a beard.

[Michael The Disciple]

I should have phrased LEVITICUS 19:27 as he commanded HIS PEOPLE not to mar the corners of their beards.

So God designed into men that they would grow beards. When he came in flesh he had one.

We are NOT told that he ever smoked cigarettes.

Is that better?

[Evang.Benincasa]

I should have phrased LEVITICUS 19:27 as he commanded HIS PEOPLE not to mar the corners of their beards.

So God designed into men that they would grow beards. When he came in flesh he had one.

We are NOT told that he ever smoked cigarettes.

Is that better?

Mike, women grow beards. Yet, you have no prohibition concerning their cutting anything around those beards. Same with cigarettes.

[Evang.Benincasa]

I don't believe the NT requires a beard. Nor does it prohibit a beard.

There isn't anything. Paul by his freeborn Roman status could of been clean shaven like the rest of the Romans. Hellenized Roman Judeans of the Diaspora could of had beards, and non beards. Some even becoming uncircumcised "epispasm" which latter Rabbinics protested against. It wasn't an issue for the first century church but a preference, largely depending on what part of the spectrum of the culture you were on.

[consapente89]

When he came in flesh he had one.



Wow!!!!!!! That's a new one!

[Aquila]

You added a bit to it. But yes, a church and its Pastor can establish guidelines for ministry based both on biblical principles and other norms and preferences.

I never said you weren't allowed to question it.

I agree with anything that can be based on biblical principle.

Can you provide a text that would support a pastor establishing a "standard" that allows partiality towards fellow brethren for something that isn't even a sin on account of personal preference???

[Aquila]

There isn't anything. Paul by his freeborn Roman status could of been clean shaven like the rest of the Romans. Hellenized Roman Judeans of the Diaspora could of had beards, and non beards. Some even becoming uncircumcised "epispasm" which latter Rabbinics protested against. It wasn't an issue for the first century church but a preference, largely depending on what part of the spectrum of the culture you were on.

Amen.

Both Jesus and Paul could have preached in the same Apostolic church in the first century. It wouldn't matter if anyone had a beard or not.

But these cats would tell Jesus Himself that he isn't worthy to serve on their platforms based on a man's preference.

[Aquila]

Health? I know men who smoked cigarettes their whole lives. Everyone is different, and genetics play hard in whether or not you will get ill from chewing or smoking tobacco. Same goes with eating fast food, I know whole families who were raised on 7 eleven food, two sister who were given Slurpees for breakfast since they were 5, and they are in their 30s now. Coffee is hugely a debatable issue, because the arguments run from Dan to Beersheba on that puppy. Anyway, cigarettes in a church family? Anyone in coming into your church who is unchurch would look at your cigarette congregation as having a screw loose. I know churches which have cigarettes buts strewn out front from their smokers corner. Socially unacceptable, smelly, and dirty.

How would you encourage family to quit smoking, EB? Would you disown them? Or would you help them see the dangers, encourage health, help them see how it isn't expedient, help them see how enslaving it is, how all the money spent on cigarettes hinders their prosperity and blessing, and help them see how the outcome of their addiction isn't loving or fair towards those who love them???

The closest I can come to such a Scripture that would allow me to threaten Hell would be:

1 Corinthians 3:17 ESV
If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him. For God's temple is holy, and you are that temple.

But I'd have to be careful. Because in context, this verse is about divisions within the body, destroying the church (seen as the temple of God). Also, I'd have to be just as hard on being overweight, drinking sodas, eating friend food, etc.

Perhaps I could argue that they are not loving those who love them as themselves. They wouldn't want to watch a loved one smoke themselves to an early death, therefore putting their loved ones through that very thing isn't loving, and is therefore sin. But, again, I'd have to employ the same logic towards everything that is not good for the body.

I see encouragement to health, holistic living, loving others, loving one's self (in a healthy manner), identifying with Christ, and surrendering your body to Him as a healthy vessel for service as the best way to approach it. Because then this loving and holistic approach could be applied towards all things, based on the individual's health and disposition.

Please understand, I'm not saying I'd do nothing. However, I don't see Scripture that would allow me to dangle them over Hell on account of it.