Are Beards The Mark Of The Beast?

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by n david

Jesus also wore a robe, Mike. WHY AREN'T YOU WEARING A ROBE, MIKE!?

The reason Jesus had a beard is because he was a JEW. It was their custom and law.

It is neither custom nor law here.

Ok why did God always speak favorably about beards?

If in reality men who want beards are full of pride, gay, drug dealers, ect would not the HOLY YAH know it? If it were really true why did he encourage if not command it?

Why would HE having come in the flesh allow such a thing on his face if he IDENTIFIED the wearers thereof with sin?

Many wont face the truth. They are simply following men and their traditions and whims.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Ok why did God always speak favorably about beards?

If in reality men who want beards are full of pride, gay, drug dealers, ect would not the HOLY YAH know it? If it were really true why did he encourage if not command it?

Why would HE having come in the flesh allow such a thing on his face if he IDENTIFIED the wearers thereof with sin?

Many wont face the truth. They are simply following men and their traditions and whims.

Why, oh why would God put a rainbow in a sky as a sign of His covenant with the earth if He knew thousands of years later, homosexuals would use it as their logo.

Do you wear a robe like Jesus did?

[navygoat1998]

Depart from Me for I never knew you.......well I did when you were cleaned shaven.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

If a man's beard or a woman's hair is keeping them from attending a church and the only reason they would attend is if the church changed its standards to appeal to them ... 1) I would mark the church and never visit; 2) it means the beard and hair were made idols;

I do see what you're saying. But seriously contemplate the following with me...

How can something be made into an idol when there is no prohibition for it in the Scriptures???

Is the Bible optional?

Is it incomplete in itself?

Is it insufficient and in need of being added to???

If the Bible gives an express command or teaching regarding something, and one would rather disregard the Bible for whatever it is... then it is an idol.

If something is merely a human opinion and is placed on equal authorative footing as Scripture itself, then it is a man made doctrine that is being added to Scripture. Now, something man made is being elevated to the place of the Holy Scriptures. Would not that human opinion being taught for doctrine and as being authoritative as Scripture itself be an idol???

Many who are troubled by the beard standard have a deep love and a passion for the Bible. Human opinions and traditions being taught as doctrine and presented as authoritative as the Bible is the problem. Not the one defending the Scriptures. If you find yourself defending a doctrine of man against someone arguing Scripture, that tradition of man is the idol. Else, where would it end?

What if a pastor mandated that everyone wear a tin foil hat on Sundays? Now imagine with me that there is an individual rebuking those who are troubled by such a silly, unbiblical, man made doctrine, that is being considered as authorative as Scripture for being "idolaters". Who is right? Those who are Bereans, searching the Scriptures to see if the tin foil hat standard is so... or the one who is defending an unbiblical mandate of man???

The real idolaters are those who prop up something man made as though it is equal to God's Holy Word.

Let's be Bereans, NDavid. Let's search the Scriptures to see if these things are so. If the Scripture doesn't have a beard standard... then the standard is a human addition to Scripture, a doctrine of man. If someone put such additional human teachings in a book and called it the, "Apostolic Pearl of Great Price", we'd denounce it. But it is the very same thing. A human contrived doctrine, based on human opinion, that has no basis in Scripture.

If one truly loves the Bible... they will see such doctrines of man as error, and rightfully condemn them as such.

3) it wouldn't be long before the church started watering down other things, such as the necessity of the new birth and made the HG into some empowerment for people who are already saved.

I've seen it. And that is a problem. This is exactly why false doctrine and traditions of man are so dangerous. They undermine faith. If a church were to shift back to the Scriptures, sadly it would all unravel. Why? Because their faith wasn't originally grounded in the Scriptures alone. One false tradition of man taught as doctrine undermines the entire whole. And so, now it must be clung to... because if the pastor was wrong on that... it stands to reason... maybe he's wrong on other things. And slowly even Acts 2:38 becomes suspect.

The reason why those churches abandon Acts 2:38 is due to the fact that their foundation was riddled with the doctrines and traditions of man... and not grounded in the Bible alone. They were never a church founded on 100% truth, so... it all false apart when the human glue that held it together is removed.

Unbiblical standards like the beard standard are why this happens.

Some men are just lazy and don't want to shave. I get it.

I'm sure some are. Some are also too dedicated to the praise of man to stand upon the Word of God and defend it from the doctrines of man. Such men are only "Catholic lite".

It's amazing to me how people will gladly do things and adhere to rules and certain standards for employers and other things. But have a Pastor say a minister should be clean shaven and WATCH OUT! All hell breaks loose.

You had no issue being clean shaven for JROTC and the Army, but you do for church. Makes no sense to me.

Your logic seems sound... unless one reminds us that the Army's FM22-5 and employer standards are not being presented as being on equal authority as the Word of God.

How would you feel if a pastor told you that Proctor & Gamble's code of conduct was equal in authority to the Bible? I pray you'd take a stand against such an idol shepherd.

What you're not seeing is that those of us who are searching the Scriptures to see if these things are so... are finding that they are not so.

Are you a Berean? Or are you dedicated to the opinions and teachings of man? That's what this is about.

[Aquila]

If a church is founded on teachings that 75% Scripture and 25% traditions and opinions of man being taught as doctrine... is it not compromised?

And is it any wonder that when such a church seeks to remove the 25% of false doctrine, faith is lost in the 75% also?

If a church abandons Acts 2:38 because the pastor ceases to preach the traditions of man that are being taught as doctrine... it is because it was never built on 100% solid rock to begin with.

A little leaven leaveneth a whole lump.

[Aquila]

There are many churches out there like the Catholic Church with members who are 100% sold out to man made teachings. They attend because they have fallen in love with the form and fashion of Catholic tradition.

Same with many Apostolic churches today. They have members who are 100% sold out to man made teachings. They attend because they have fallen in love with the form and fashion of Apostolic Pentecostalism.

In both cases... they have elevated church tradition and the doctrines of men to the level of being as authoritative as Scripture.

[1ofthechosen]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Dont make up lies. Quote one time in 11000 posts where I said anyone should drop Acts 2:38.

I pray for IHOP that they ACCEPT Acts 2:38 in a more precise manner.

Did I ever claim you said we should drop Acts 2:38? You know that's not what I meant.

And you did say you pray for revival for Bickle and I hop. All I'm saying is you jump from point to point when it suits you best. Anyone else who's ever had differing views (especially beards)then you on anything would know what I meant.

[Aquila]

One either loves Scriptures or they don't.

One either believes that the Scriptures are complete in themselves, or they don't.

One either believes that the Bible contains all we need to do to be saved, or they don't.

This isn't about beards... dress codes... etc.

This is about the Word of God vs. the doctrines and traditions of man.

Biblical truth vs. human tradition.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I do see what you're saying. But seriously contemplate the following with me...

How can something be made into an idol when there is no prohibition for it in the Scriptures???

You could say that of a lot of things. Even things which we were discussing earlier. There's no prohibition for creating organizations in the Bible, yet we agree that one could make an organization their idol.

There's no prohibition for eating or many other things. Yet an idol isn't about the prohibition of something. An idol is anything which comes between a person and God.

Beards don't have to be prohibited to be an idol. If a man uses that as a basis to not attend church, it has become an idol.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Many who are troubled by the beard standard have a deep love and a passion for the Bible.

I don't doubt they do. And if they do have a deep love and passion for the Bible, they would (or should) understand then that the Pastor has been put in this role by God and has the responsibility to watch for their souls and give account of them to God.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Let's be Bereans, NDavid. Let's search the Scriptures to see if these things are so. If the Scripture doesn't have a beard standard... then the standard is a human addition to Scripture, a doctrine of man. If someone put such additional human teachings in a book and called it the, "Apostolic Pearl of Great Price", we'd denounce it. But it is the very same thing. A human contrived doctrine, based on human opinion, that has no basis in Scripture.

What did Jesus mean when He spoke of the Law and the Prophets?

Originally Posted by Aquila

I've seen it. And that is a problem. This is exactly why false doctrine and traditions of man are so dangerous. They undermine faith. If a church were to shift back to the Scriptures, sadly it would all unravel. Why? Because their faith wasn't originally grounded in the Scriptures alone. One false tradition of man taught as doctrine undermines the entire whole. And so, now it must be clung to... because if the pastor was wrong on that... it stands to reason... maybe he's wrong on other things. And slowly even Acts 2:38 becomes suspect.

Sorry, I disagree with you here. The issue is deception and compromise. The devil will try to deceive people into believe that if they just let up here or let this or that go, "tens of thousands" will come. When in reality not only is that not going to happen, but more people will be lost.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Your logic seems sound... unless one reminds us that the Army's FM22-5 and employer standards are not being presented as being on equal authority as the Word of God.

You're right, they're not. Which makes it even more incredible that men would gladly follow the former and resist the latter.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

If a church is founded on teachings that 75% Scripture and 25% traditions and opinions of man being taught as doctrine... is it not compromised?

And is it any wonder that when such a church seeks to remove the 25% of false doctrine, faith is lost in the 75% also?

If a church abandons Acts 2:38 because the pastor ceases to preach the traditions of man that are being taught as doctrine... it is because it was never built on 100% solid rock to begin with.

A little leaven leaveneth a whole lump.

Sorry, but no.