Church Fathers Opinion of Hair

[Sam]

Originally Posted by GrowingPains

Shame, Sam! Are you suggesting culture has something to do with this!?

yes,

Paul appealed to "nature" which I take to be the "natural world around them" i.e. the current social mores.

[GrowingPains]

Originally Posted by Sam

yes,

Paul appealed to "nature" which I take to be the "natural world around them" i.e. the current social mores.

Here's a question to spin off that:

Interesting you think nature means "the natural world around them", others see it contrary. For example, since Paul also made an appeal to "nature", which many believe transcends the current culture and is much more global and broad, that it would supercede culture.

Also in another letter to Timothy Paul admonishes the brethren to not have women having authority or teaching other men, and makes an appeal to the OT (Adam and Eve)... are these then transcendent to culture? Many say, because of that, they are.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by GrowingPains

No, we should all be Day of Pentecostics. The ultimate trump on history is the New Testament. The others serve as guides for interpretation. Historical/Biblical method uses both church and secular history to help understand the original Text, not opine into editorials about new text.

So how does history help an interpretation that means we should all be Pentecostals?

[GrowingPains]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

So how does history help an interpretation that means we should all be Pentecostals?

It most certainly does. But it's not all about interpreting to "make sure I'm Pentecostal." Think big picture with me here... it's not about supporting Pentecostalism. It's supporting interpretation of given Scriptures by doing the life and times of Jesus through additional sources outside the NT letters, which include historians, and yes, sometimes the RCC.

You are either:

a) denying that history has any validity with biblical hermeneutics

or

b) it has much validity, and you aren't sure it supports Classical Pentecostalism.

Which is it?

[GrowingPains]

If it wasn't for the damnable RCC, we wouldn't have known about people like Michael Servetus and others who died pointing out the apostasy of the church.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by GrowingPains

It most certainly does. But it's not all about interpreting to "make sure I'm Pentecostal." Think big picture with me here... it's not about supporting Pentecostalism. It's supporting interpretation of given Scriptures by doing the life and times of Jesus through additional sources outside the NT letters, which include historians, and yes, sometimes the RCC.

You are either:

a) denying that history has any validity with biblical hermeneutics

or

b) it has much validity, and you aren't sure it supports Classical Pentecostalism.

Which is it?

It's

c) Im asking you questions to test the idea of the historical/scriptural method of interpretation

Now you did say earlier or suggest that that method would make most Pentecostals...assuming they really did such a method...was that correct? Im asking how, you answered "it most certainly does" which does not answer my question.

I'd like some examples of how. BTW I'd say it was the wonderful Calvinists that preserved the death of Servetus, but my question is HOW does that help us to have a correct biblical interpretation of scriptures...or does it?

[GrowingPains]

Originally Posted by TheLegalist

Who said the veil covered all of the hair? Also who said wearing veils all the time was necessary? The text says praying and prophecying? Otherwise in Spiritual order to God. Thus I think your points lack textual support.

Concerning your other points... They don't deal with text itself. Paul does not give that form or type of reasoning at all. I have read and reasearched the arguments from both sides and been through formal debate after formal debate. To each his own but in the end it is God who we must seek 1st and his will. I cannot justify the reasoning of others that make the text not for today. It doesn't say that nor even hint to such.

I think the point of praying or prophesying shows that this wasn't about uncut hair, but about veils and culture. The text is for today, certainly, but the meaning of the text must only mean today what it truly meant then.

[GrowingPains]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

It's

c) Im asking you questions to test the idea of the historical/scriptural method of interpretation

Now you did say earlier or suggest that that method would make most Pentecostals...assuming they really did such a method...was that correct? Im asking how, you answered "it most certainly does" which does not answer my question.

I'd like some examples of how. BTW I'd say it was the wonderful Calvinists that preserved the death of Servetus, but my question is HOW does that help us to have a correct biblical interpretation of scriptures...or does it?

The method doesn't make you anything, it helps you interpret scripture. All evidence helps us with interpretation. 1 Cor 11, knowing the cultural history of the time, helps illuminate understanding the scripture. To them it meant something at that time, we must find out what it meant. To do that, we point to various non-biblical resources.

[GrowingPains]

I recently had a friend of mine send me an email about the soteriological versus ecclesiological arguments, along with a bunch of other notes he took down after a meeting he had with a UC preacher. This friend is wrestling with the same things most of us are, or have before.

But his questions were good ones to bring back to the board to post.
Isn't that just semantics? If we make it the Theology of the Church, separate of the the Theology of Salvation, do those two theologies eventually merge and imply the very same thing anyway? Soteriology is about how to SAVE YOURSELVES, but Ecclesiology seems to do with SIN, responsibility of the believer. Basically, I think the brother he met with used a magic wand to explain away something unexplainable.

And if it is not sinful, why would be make it our trademark standard, disfellowship brethern, write in in bylaws, and kick out leaders for "violations"?

[citizen]

I also read that their teachings are that hair coloring is vanity and just plain sinful.