Basic Standards

[Truthseeker]

Originally Posted by coksiw

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

Let's not deflect from the question please. Its a valid point he made, an APOSTLE confirmed sin is transgression of the law. Back to my question

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

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by coksiw

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

James says, "For sin is transgression of the Law."

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

Nature? Like Lions for example? I don't think it means creation or literal nature.


Just because a Jewish writer claims something doesn't mean it's true. Where in the law, that jews claim to live by, command uncut hair?

Yes, the same way Paul use the word "nature" in here:

Romans 1:26 (NKJV) 26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature.

Do you think Paul was taking about "nature" in the modern scientific way of speaking or in the ancient sense of referring to the beginning, the way we were created?

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

Let's not deflect from the question please. Its a valid point he made, an APOSTLE confirmed sin is transgression of the law. Back to my question

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

Look at this:

"They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except [it be] for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery." - Matthew 19:7-9 KJV


Follow Jesus Christ and his teachings. He is your Teacher. He has the right interpretation of the law, which includes Genesis to Deuteronomy. Not only that, he also fulfilled it.

Mark 9:7 (NKJV) 7 And a cloud came and overshadowed them; and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, “This is My beloved Son. Hear Him!”

If you believe the NT is inspired by God, then you should listen to what it says. Not obeying the instructions of our Lord and God Jesus Christ, even if they are not in the law of Moses, is a sin.

Also, regarding Romans, you should pay close attention to how Paul uses terms, and phrases, and concept so you don't come with the wrong conclusions.

For example, "law is the knowledge of sin". What is the meaning of that? Right before: "(NKJV) Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law". It is talking about the law of Moses. However, it also says: "(NKJV) sin is not imputed when there is no law". So, the Gentiles didn't have a law, and therefore are not guilty of nothing to be judged? What is the meaning of "sin" in Romans? what is the meaning of "knowledge of sin"? How do you reconcile that with the fact that the Gentiles didn't have the law, so they didn't have "knowledge of sin", but they were still condemned?

Sin starts from the heart. Matthew 5:21-22 (NKJV) 21 “You have heard that it was said to those of old, You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.’ 22 But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire.

Look at this, obeying the Sabbath, and forgetting to have mercy:
Luke 6:9 (NKJV) 9 Then Jesus said to them, “I will ask you one thing: Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do evil, to save life or to destroy?”

More about the sin starting in the heart:
Luke 16:13-14 (NKJV) 13 “No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.”
14 Now the Pharisees, who were lovers of money, also heard all these things, and they derided Him.

Attitudes matters to the Lord, and attitudes do reflect on what you do or say, and eventually they take you to break the law.

The Lord through the apostles instructed us to adorn ourselves with meekness and good works. Perhaps not following those instructions will eventually lead you to break the law in one way or the other? What about the Law about listening to the Prophet to come?
Deuteronomy 18:15 (NKJV) 15 “The LORD your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your midst, from your brethren. Him you shall hear" The Law is telling you to Listen to Jesus and his instructions.

[Esaias]

The NT affirms: whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law, for sin is the transgression of the law.

Whosoever: Christian, Jew, BC or AD, WHOSOEVER, anybody, everybody.

It doesn't matter who the person is or when they lived, if ANYBODY commits sin they are transgressing the law. Why? Because sin IS the transgression of the law. Sin is defined as the violation of the divine law. Sin is therefore a theological term meaning CRIME.

Paul says "I had not known sin but by the law." The law defines sin. The law identifies what is sin. A crime is identified by the law that prohibits the offending action. If there is no law that was violated, there was no crime. How could it be otherwise? How can a person be guilty of violating a non existent law?

No matter what we identify as "sin", it must be identifiable as a transgression of the law, because that is exactly how the Bible defines the term.

Regarding Jesus, the law states we are to heed the Prophet whom God raises up. Failure to hear that Prophet results in being cut off and destroyed. It is therefore SIN to refuse to heed the Prophet raised up by God.

So, did Jesus abolish the law? Did He repeal God's legislation? Did He substitute new laws that replaced previous laws ordained by God?

Matthew 5:17-19 KJV
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. [18] For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. [19] Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

He forbids us to even THINK that He came to destroy the law. He affirms even the tiniest jots and tittles remain as long as heaven and earth remain, until the very END or completion of ALL THINGS. So He has not repealed or abrogated anything in the law.

People toss the word "sin" around with very little thought as to what is involved. When accusing someone of sin and threatening death in the lake of fire, one is making a capital accusation. If the accusation be false, the accuser incurs the same fate as what the accused would have faced if the accusation was true:

Deuteronomy 19:16-19 KJV
If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong; [17] Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the Lord, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days; [18] And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother; [19] Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you.

So it would be foolish to accuse someone of sin unless you have book, chapter, and verse to back it up, AND you are willing to bet your very life on it:

Matthew 7:1-5 KJV
Judge not, that ye be not judged. [2] For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. [3] And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? [4] Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? [5] Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

[Esaias]

Regarding the prohibition against jewelry.

Nowhere do either Peter or Paul identify wearing jewelry is a sin. How could they? There was no commandment in the law prohibiting jewelry in all cases whatsoever.

However, it is expressly stated by both apostles that women ought to adorn themselves with spiritual virtues and not material ornaments. Does nobody think to ask, "Upon what basis do they make this teaching?"

Isaiah 3:16-24 KJV
Moreover the Lord saith, Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, and walk with stretched forth necks and wanton eyes, walking and mincing as they go, and making a tinkling with their feet: [17] Therefore the Lord will smite with a scab the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion, and the Lord will discover their secret parts. [18] In that day the Lord will take away the bravery of their tinkling ornaments about their feet, and their cauls, and their round tires like the moon, [19] The chains, and the bracelets, and the mufflers, [20] The bonnets, and the ornaments of the legs, and the headbands, and the tablets, and the earrings, [21] The rings, and nose jewels, [22] The changeable suits of apparel, and the mantles, and the wimples, and the crisping pins, [23] The glasses, and the fine linen, and the hoods, and the vails. [24] And it shall come to pass, that instead of sweet smell there shall be stink; and instead of a girdle a rent; and instead of well set hair baldness; and instead of a stomacher a girding of sackcloth; and burning instead of beauty.

The prophet identifies two facts. First, the women of Israel were well-decorated with all manner of finery, wealth and prosperity being on full display. Second, the women of Israel, like society at large, were wanton and rebellious against God. So their finery had become an insult to God. In response, God promises them poverty and devastation and an end to the nice life. They will go from riches to rags as a result of divine judgment against sin.

Now consider 1st century Roman Imperial times. The same conditions prevail: all the high society and finery and wealth of man on display in all ostentation, while sin and wickedness and rebellion rule the hearts. The church, being literally a counter cultural movement against such a satanic culture, is warned not to follow the worldlings, not to be like them. Plain, simple, modest apparel is called for. Because if a sister wears a gold necklace she's going to hell? No, but rather because we are ADORNING ourselves for the world to see, and our appearance, conversation, and lifestyle should SAY something to the world.

The issue isn't about "Will someone go to hell over this or that?" The issue is "How should the church present itself to the world at large? What message are we sending?" I think it is incredibly small minded for modern Christians to only be focused on "me, myself, and I", the unholy trinitarianism of modern religion. Because the Christian life isn't all about what YOU "get to do, as you please."

Imagine a husband telling his wife "I think you shouldn't dress a certain way, it sends the wrong message, let's agree to do things another way" and she IMMEDIATELY thinks "So are you saying you will divorce me if I don't comply?" And imagine if that's ALL she can wrap her little mind around? Do you imagine that's a happy, healthy marriage? Perhaps the man will find himself regretting ever marrying such a self centered boorish woman!

Yet so many professors of religion seem to think and act the same way as that woman, when it comes to apostolic teaching. Kind of like Pharisees, who strained out gnats but swallowed camels.

[Esaias]

In regards to hair, long hair on a woman is a lesson from nature that supports the apostolic injunction for women to wear a head covering when worshipping, and for men NOT to wear a head covering when worshipping. Focusing on hair misses the entire point of the apostle's teaching.

1 Corinthians 11:1-2 KJV
Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. [2] Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

There are apostolic ordinances that the church ought to follow. That applies to head coverings as well as to the proper observance of the Lord's Supper. The apostles' purpose was to instruct Christians how to live for God as students of Messiah. Part of their authority included the establishment and maintenance of ordinances governing the operations of the assembly. The issue here isn't "sin", it is expedient and efficient and proper and smooth operations in the church.

In Acts 15, a controversy arose in the church, and the elders and apostles through prayer and the leading of the Spirit settled the matter and sent out decrees that expressed the judgment and sentence of the church on the matter. This derives from Deut 1:13-17, in that the church or congregation of God does indeed have members in it who have authority. Granted it must be exercised in keeping with the fundamental rules that established those authorities in the first place, but it cannot be denied that the apostles had authority and established certain proper ordinances or rules for how the church is to conduct itself.

Is it sin then to do what the apostles said not to do? Well, not in and of itself (as if a woman praying without a head covering is a specific violation of the divine law regarding prayer). BUT refusing to submit to the lawful ordinances established by lawful government IS a sin, it is rebellion and presumption, anarchy and lawlessness. The issue isn't sin and head covering, but sin and submission to apostolic authority.

How many Christians believe a local speed limit or housing ordinance or parliamentary rules for a secular proceeding are obligatory and binding for the Christian, yet ordinances established for the church by an apostle of Christ are of no concern and not obligatory? Seems hypocritical and irrational to me.

[consapente89]

Men- Short hair...off the ears and collars. Avoiding current trending hair cuts that are short on the side and long and flowy on top.

No skinny pants or happy socks.

Wear a belt and some real shoes...no flip flops

Long pants.

No skirts

Ladies- Uncut hair, un-permed hair, un-dyed hair

No adorning of the hair with flowers, bows or jeweled hair pieces

No cosmetics such as make up, artificial tan, lip gloss or “foundation”

Skirts to mid calf, no splits

No bare legs, should wear panty hoes

No leggings that the foot goes through sticking out of the bottom of the skirt. Tights with the footing are best, but if leggings are worn they need to be completely covered by the skirt at all times. No pajama pants.

General-

No television or Hollywood video entertainment

Keep the video cameras out of the church.

Sleeves below the elbow

No jewelry..such as broaches, wedding bands, decorative hair pieces or flashy watches. Watches should be modest without silver, gold or jewels.

Tithe a minimum of 10% of all increase.

Submit to a local pastor.

Faithful church attendance

Daily Bible reading

Daily private prayer

Family devotion at least on non-service nights

No organized sports

No tobacco, alcohol or recreational drug use

No lottery or gambling

No movie theaters

No mixed bathing

On social media, probably best to avoid it. I’ve seen more detriment than good. Same goes with forums, although I’ve not yet completely gotten away from this forum.

One spouse for life, after the new birth, unless one passes by way of grave.

No lady preachers.

Just the basic standards of most genuinely Apostolic churches.

[consapente89]

Almost forgot the most important...no voting democrat!!

[Amanah]

You forgot no pagan holidays.
No public schools.