I do know people who have felt called to take the Nazarite vowel.
But friend the point remains....would God instruct a person to commit a sin that would condemn them to hell? logic says "NO". then what about consistency of the text? did God change His mind regarding "hair...the long & short of it"?
It wasn't a sin. They were just obeying God's command. If God commands you to do something, you do it.
Is there even the remote possibility the Paul could have been addressing a question/situation that we are not privy to?
If this were the case and if the question were of importance, it would be in the word of God. This scripture would not be in the Bible if it was not important.
Is it sound theology & hermeneutics to base a heaven & hell doctrine a single passage?
I don't know...you tell me. Mark 16:16
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
Or could this maybe be the honest, heart felt conviction of a Godly person...who then pasted it along to others?
2 Timothy 3:16 (New International Version)
16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
"Doth not even nature teach you" should tell you something about this passage. It shouldn't have been an issue, but some were seeking to argue about the matter. That's why Paul said, "We have no other custom that this". Jesus also taught some things that were not mentioned in the Old Test. such as looking upon a woman to lust after her. Need I go on?
Jesus' comment about not looking on a woman to lust after her was built upon the commandment 'thou shalt not commit adultery'. Jesus didn't come up with stuff out of thin air.
Nature teaches us that a woman's long hair is her glory. As I mentioned when talking about cancer in a previous post.
'we have no such custom' - scholars have filled books debating exactly which custom Paul was referring to.... wearing a veil, contention, or long hair, or.....
Jesus' comment about not looking on a woman to lust after her was built upon the commandment 'thou shalt not commit adultery'. Jesus didn't come up with stuff out of thin air.
Nature teaches us that a woman's long hair is her glory. As I mentioned when talking about cancer in a previous post.
'we have no such custom' - scholars have filled books debating exactly which custom Paul was referring to.... wearing a veil, contention, or long hair, or.....
I'm confused. We should just ignore Paul's letters because he seemingly pulled things out of thin air? What about his teaching on grace? There were things he wrote about grace that I don't find anywhere else in the Bible. If we're going to discount one thing that he wrote based upon the fact that it was just for that church, then we must discount it all. This man had a walk with God, just like Moses did. Why should we obey the Ten Commandments and not 1 Cor. 11?
I won't deny the 'we have no such custom' debate, but why would Paul make such a bold statement such as "Doth not even nature teach you" and then go on to say, "Ignore what I just wrote. We have no such custom."
I'm confused. We should just ignore Paul's letters because he seemingly pulled things out of thin air? What about his teaching on grace? There were things he wrote about grace that I don't find anywhere else in the Bible. If we're going to discount one thing that he wrote based upon the fact that it was just for that church, then we must discount it all. This man had a walk with God, just like Moses did. Why should we obey the Ten Commandments and not 1 Cor. 11?
I won't deny the 'we have no such custom' debate, but why would Paul make such a bold statement such as "Doth not even nature teach you" and then go on to say, "Ignore what I just wrote. We have no such custom."
I didn't say anything about ignoring Paul's letters. I said we should take them in context. Paul didn't just pull 'grace' out of thin air. That was based on the work that Jesus did. But what, in the entire Bible, would he have based "thou shalt not cut thine hair" on? You have to take the Bible in its entirety.
I have to run now, but I'll try to come back later and explain my position on this a little better.
sorry I don't know how to copy a post when someone writes in it.
But this is in response to post # 163.
so if I feel/believe that God tells me its "ok" for a woman to cut their hair...then its ok?
without getting to deep....you do realize that men voted on what would be included in the cannon...and that our current KJV does not reflect what they first voted on.
Mark 16:16 is a great scripture...but it is NOT the only passage that teaches this principle. Also...if Jesus said "believe, be baptized, and be saved"...then do we have a right to add "don't cut your hair" to that? Also note that Jesus says nothing of baptism with He talks about condemnation....interesting.
regarding 2Tim.3:16. what is "all scripture"? Does this exclude the letters that were written after St.Paul wrote this? How about the O.T.? Does that only include the O.T. at St.Paul's time?....or does it also include ours today?
sorry I don't know how to copy a post when someone writes in it.
But this is in response to post # 163.
so if I feel/believe that God tells me its "ok" for a woman to cut their hair...then its ok?
without getting to deep....you do realize that men voted on what would be included in the cannon...and that our current KJV does not reflect what they first voted on.
Mark 16:16 is a great scripture...but it is NOT the only passage that teaches this principle. Also...if Jesus said "believe, be baptized, and be saved"...then do we have a right to add "don't cut your hair" to that? Also note that Jesus says nothing of baptism with He talks about condemnation....interesting.
regarding 2Tim.3:16. what is "all scripture"? Does this exclude the letters that were written after St.Paul wrote this? How about the O.T.? Does that only include the O.T. at St.Paul's time?....or does it also include ours today?
Excellent thoughts; however I'd quibble about the "men voted on the canon" of Scripture. Sure, there were "votes" taken at later dates in various councils however they were really just voting to confirm what the entire Body Christ had been practicing all along.
Excellent thoughts; however I'd quibble about the "men voted on the canon" of Scripture. Sure, there were "votes" taken at later dates in various councils however they were really just voting to confirm what the entire Body Christ had been practicing all along.
thank you.
interesting. what do you call the "entire Body of Christ"? Because if memory serves....there were some pretty heated debates in the first couple of councils(3rd & 4th century)...and later on as well.
history proves that nobody argues like church foke.
interesting. what do you call the "entire Body of Christ"? Because if memory serves....there were some pretty heated debates in the first couple of councils(3rd & 4th century)...and later on as well.
history proves that nobody argues like church foke.
Even today, there is more than one canon in use by different segments of the church. (Assuming one allows all the segments that call themselves the church or part of the church to be segments of the church.)
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
Even today, there is more than one canon in use by different segments of the church. (Assuming one allows all the segments that call themselves the church or part of the church to be segments of the church.)
Not really... except for the isolated Ethiopian Coptic church. The Roman Catholic Church accepts portions of the OT Apocrypha as canonical but not at the same level as the books which had "full assent" since the First Century. They recognize the historic uncertainty of this works. The fact that even the Protestant reformers behind the KJV still held a high regard for this same material and included it in the KJV shows the depths of those feelings.
Accepting uncertainty is a primary element of faith. There is uncertainty about portions of the Apocrypha. There are even more element of uncertainty about our faith. Only fundamentalists and atheists will assert absolute certainty... "birds of a feather..."
Hybrid Mode
