Mark Johnston Drops from UPCI, Garner Next???

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I'm not the one that steered the conversation this way. Some are advocating that there is no distinction in dress taught in the Bible and I disagree. The distinction the Apostles taught was "modesty". So, yes, Christians have a distinction from the world and it involves more than just our conversation/behaviour.

Anytime you try to talk about this subject, it gets taken right back to "standards", which is very annoying. LOL! I just wanted to talk about what the Apostles were teaching.

Christians are to be a modest people. Simple. We don't wear that which is designed to provoke lust or to be noticed. Specifics aren't mentioned. Those will be largely cultural.

I currently attend a church wherein the pastor wears causual cloths to preach in and the congregation is also rather causual and the women do wear contemporary clothing, but modest. When I visited my oldtime holiness Apostolic church I was a bit taken aback... I saw far more leg in the holiness church. The ladies wore their skirts and dresses just below the knees and their shoes were typically attractive pumps, heels, etc. Some weren't even wearing panty hose, and their legs looked waxed.

I mean... the women in the church I go to now wear shirts and blouses that aren't that much different from the holiness women I know. They most often wear jeans or pants that show virtually no skin. I'm finding it almost more modest than the holiness church I used to attend. But that's just me.

[Aquila]

The following picture represents the typical standards of the holiness church I attended:



The following picture here represents the typical dress of the church I currently attend:



The holiness group have ladies showing far more skin, especially on the legs.

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Aquila

The following picture represents the typical standards of the holiness church I attended:



The following picture here represents the typical dress of the church I currently attend:



The holiness group have ladies showing far more skin, especially on the legs.

Thats sort of funny Aquila... I mean, the second pic certainly appears to have lower temperatures with most wearing coats and all...

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

Thats sort of funny Aquila... I mean, the second pic certainly appears to have lower temperatures with most wearing coats and all...

True... lol I didn't notice that.

The shirts would be relatively the same. However, the ladies in the church I attend now would be wearing blue jeans and look more like the girl on the far left. My point is primarily the legs. Even in cooler weather... you'd see as much leg as the first pic among Apostolic ladies.

[*AQuietPlace*]

Originally Posted by Esther

Somehow I don't think this is what you mean in the entire of not being different.

If you are saying they didn't dress different than the world, I for the most part agree with you. But a blanket be like the world is not what Jesus preached.

I was speaking particularly of the practice of veiling.

No, Jesus didn't preach to be like the world - but I think his definition of 'be different than the world' is much different than what we usually hear preached.

This seems more along the lines of what Jesus taught:


----------------------------------------------
1 John 2:16 New Living Translation (©2007)

For the world offers only a craving for physical pleasure, a craving for everything we see, and pride in our achievements and possessions. These are not from the Father, but are from this world.
----------------------------------------------


Even the whole 'modesty' thing that Paul was teaching would fit well with this passage. It's not about our jewels and fancy clothing, it's about our spirit, our attitude, what we love, what we boast about, what we want people to notice.

I really believe that separation from the world is about our spirit, about what our goals are in life... a whole lot more than it is a list of clothing regulations. I'm becoming frustrated with so much focus on clothing.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

I was speaking particularly of the practice of veiling.

No, Jesus didn't preach to be like the world - but I think his definition of 'be different than the world' is much different than what we usually hear preached.

This seems more along the lines of what Jesus taught:


----------------------------------------------
1 John 2:16 New Living Translation (©2007)

For the world offers only a craving for physical pleasure, a craving for everything we see, and pride in our achievements and possessions. These are not from the Father, but are from this world.
----------------------------------------------


Even the whole 'modesty' thing that Paul was teaching would fit well with this passage. It's not about our jewels and fancy clothing, it's about our spirit, our attitude, what we love, what we boast about, what we want people to notice.

I really believe that separation from the world is about our spirit, about what our goals are in life... a whole lot more than it is a list of clothing regulations. I'm becoming frustrated with so much focus on clothing.

I want to post that scripture in the "poor people" thread.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

The context of the offense that I Cor 10 is referencing is the sacrificing to idols and the food served at any feast you may be invited to. He says to eat, unless the host is specifically saying that the food had been offered in idol worship. I don't think that has anything to do with chapter 11. Although, the principle of offending is a good principle to teach.

The theme of offense is carried from chapter 10 into 11. This is why the words of following Paul has he followed Christ are mentioned in chapter 11.

It is also why Paul does not mention the term SIN in conjunction with the covering. He was saying that as much as it is the normative cultural manner for women to not be bald, so they must go by the OTHER normal manner for women to be veiled. Doing so in prayer was something Paul added, but women in Israel wore veils to show submission as the men wore caps as well.

How could they be offending such a diverse culture by taking off their veils? The Greek women didn't wear them during prayer. Why would they care?

The sinners would see Christian women not covering their heads in religious prayer and would be shocked.

Here is what women in that day looked like:





"In Greco-Roman culture, both women and men wore head coverings in religious contexts."

This is shown below in this pic-- notice they are sacrificing -- a woman and two men, including Emperor Augustus, are sacrificing at the "Altar of the Lares":



One reference I found said, "If Paul wanted the Corinthian women prophets to wear head coverings in worship, he may have been asking that they follow the customs of the dominant culture.".

It's like a Christian doing something totally shocking to the world, when the world would not even do that. The Corinthians seemed to have problems with this as noted in 1 Cor 5 where they tolerated a man committing fornication with his father's wife which the world would not even tolerate!

He is teaching the opposite of Jewish custom then, with the men. He is telling them to NOT be covered during prayer and you are saying they were covered in Jewish custom.

Exactly. That is the case for the men. But the men were not the problem in Corinth. It was the women.

Also, Jewish custom dictated the covering of the face for the women. He isn't demanding that of them in the passage. So, that is a bit confusing.

Please show bible for women REQUIRED to cover their faces. It is not in the bible.

Here is where I came to grips with my present conclusions. Paul rebuked women in Corinth for not wearing covering. Let's not say WHAT the covering is for argument's sake. The point is he rebuked them. Now, you do not rebuke someone for something if they had not already been taught it. But try to find where in the Bible they were taught about coverings outside of a rebuke, for them to have a reference in the bible that they should have been abiding by. It's not there. Conclusion: It is outside the bible in the customs of the day.

You could be right if Paul is logically explaining that you have to use scissors to shorten the hair enough to shave it all off. Because, there is no way you can make someone totally bald with a pair of scissors. A razor, yes. Scissors, no.

Scissors, yes

That is what the word SHORN literally means. To make bald by scissors.

Definition: shorn
Part of Speech Definition
Adjective 1. Having the hair or wool cut or clipped off as if with shears or clippers; "picked up the baby's shorn curls from the floor".[Wordnet]
2. Being bald, hairless, bare or naked. [Eve - graph theoretic]
3. Being bereft. [Eve - graph theoretic]

Think of SHEARING SHEEP. They clip as close to the skin as possible, not merely trimming. SHORN is to SHEAR. Paul had his HEAD SHORN for a vow. Paul always had his hair short since he taught men ought not have long hair. But for him to SHEAR his head for a vow required him to do something aside form the norm. And scholars agree it was to embalden him. So SHORN cannot simply mean to cut. You CAN embalden with scissors. That is what SHORN means.

If he is not implying that, then he is meaning to cut it short or shave it all off. It looks like, to me, that is what he is meaning, because of how he instructs the men to have short hair. He doesn't say bald.

SHORN means to make bald.

What does shorn mean?

Shorn means to have the hair or wool cut or clipped off as if with shears or clippers.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_shorn_mean

A good way to understand shorn is to ask how much wool is removed from a sheep when they are shorn.

Really, I think the ONLY people who think SHORN means cut are folks already accustomed to the tradition of not cutting hair at all. No one else would conclude that. So bias is involved, IMHO.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by mfblume

The theme of offense is carried from chapter 10 into 11. This is why the words of following Paul has he followed Christ are mentioned in chapter 11.

I'll look at it again, which I've done several times already, but it looks to me that he has changed the subject and moved on to another topic. So, right now, I'm not totally in agreement with you. And I am not arguing about this, just knocking around some ideas.

It is also why Paul does not mention the term SIN in conjunction with the covering. He was saying that as much as it is the normative cultural manner for women to not be bald, so they must go by the OTHER normal manner for women to be veiled. Doing so in prayer was something Paul added, but women in Israel wore veils to show submission as the men wore caps as well.

The sinners would see Christian women not covering their heads in religious prayer and would be shocked.

Here is what women in that day looked like:

"In Greco-Roman culture, both women and men wore head coverings in religious contexts."

This is shown below in this pic-- notice they are sacrificing -- a woman and two men, including Emperor Augustus, are sacrificing at the "Altar of the Lares":

One reference I found said, "If Paul wanted the Corinthian women prophets to wear head coverings in worship, he may have been asking that they follow the customs of the dominant culture.".

It's like a Christian doing something totally shocking to the world, when the world would not even do that. The Corinthians seemed to have problems with this as noted in 1 Cor 5 where they tolerated a man committing fornication with his father's wife which the world would not even tolerate!

Exactly. That is the case for the men. But the men were not the problem in Corinth. It was the women.

Please show bible for women REQUIRED to cover their faces. It is not in the bible.

Here is where I came to grips with my present conclusions. Paul rebuked women in Corinth for not wearing covering. Let's not say WHAT the covering is for argument's sake. The point is he rebuked them. Now, you do not rebuke someone for something if they had not already been taught it. But try to find where in the Bible they were taught about coverings outside of a rebuke, for them to have a reference in the bible that they should have been abiding by. It's not there. Conclusion: It is outside the bible in the customs of the day.

I don't think I am saying, "required" as much as it was just done. Here we have women covering their faces and we have women who wore no veils at all:

"The veil was the distinctive female wearing apparel. All females, with the exception of maidservants and women in a low condition of life, wore a veil. They would usually never lay it aside, except when they were in the presence of servants, or on rare occasions. When traveling, women may throw the veil over the back part of their head, but if they see a man approaching, they place it back on it's original position. Thus Rebekah, when she saw Issac approaching her camel caravan, covered her face with her veil (Gen. 24:64-65). When women are at home they do not speak to a guest without being veiled and in the presence of maids. They do no enter the guest's chamber, but rather, standing at the door, they make it known to the servant what is wanted (See II Kings 4:12-13). It is well to remember that prostitutes went unveiled. When a woman kept her veil down, it was forbidden for anyone to lift it, but she was free to do so if she chose." Manners and Customs of Bible Lands

Scissors, yes

That is what the word SHORN literally means. To make bald by scissors.

Definition: shorn
Part of Speech Definition
Adjective 1. Having the hair or wool cut or clipped off as if with shears or clippers; "picked up the baby's shorn curls from the floor".[Wordnet]
2. Being bald, hairless, bare or naked. [Eve - graph theoretic]
3. Being bereft. [Eve - graph theoretic]

Think of SHEARING SHEEP. They clip as close to the skin as possible, not merely trimming. SHORN is to SHEAR. Paul had his HEAD SHORN for a vow. Paul always had his hair short since he taught men ought not have long hair. But for him to SHEAR his head for a vow required him to do something aside form the norm. And scholars agree it was to embalden him. So SHORN cannot simply mean to cut. You CAN embalden with scissors. That is what SHORN means.

SHORN means to make bald.

What does shorn mean?

Shorn means to have the hair or wool cut or clipped off as if with shears or clippers.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_shorn_mean

A good way to understand shorn is to ask how much wool is removed from a sheep when they are shorn.

Really, I think the ONLY people who think SHORN means cut are folks already accustomed to the tradition of not cutting hair at all. No one else would conclude that. So bias is involved, IMHO.

Why does the bias always have to be interjected here? It's just a word being defined. And, logically, it's two tools being used. Blade shears or scissors don't take off all of the wool from a sheep. That's a little different than what a razor can do.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Aquila

The following picture represents the typical standards of the holiness church I attended:

The following picture here represents the typical dress of the church I currently attend:

The holiness group have ladies showing far more skin, especially on the legs.

Thanks, Aquila. We are discussing scripture. I'm not interested in a tit for tat comparison of church groups. If God didn't direct me to your church, it wouldn't make much difference what they were wearing.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Scissors, yes

That is what the word SHORN literally means. To make bald by scissors.

Definition: shorn
Part of Speech Definition
Adjective 1. Having the hair or wool cut or clipped off as if with shears or clippers; "picked up the baby's shorn curls from the floor".[Wordnet]
2. Being bald, hairless, bare or naked. [Eve - graph theoretic]
3. Being bereft. [Eve - graph theoretic]

Think of SHEARING SHEEP. They clip as close to the skin as possible, not merely trimming. SHORN is to SHEAR. Paul had his HEAD SHORN for a vow. Paul always had his hair short since he taught men ought not have long hair. But for him to SHEAR his head for a vow required him to do something aside form the norm. And scholars agree it was to embalden him. So SHORN cannot simply mean to cut. You CAN embalden with scissors. That is what SHORN means.

SHORN means to make bald.

What does shorn mean?

Shorn means to have the hair or wool cut or clipped off as if with shears or clippers.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_shorn_mean

A good way to understand shorn is to ask how much wool is removed from a sheep when they are shorn.

Really, I think the ONLY people who think SHORN means cut are folks already accustomed to the tradition of not cutting hair at all. No one else would conclude that. So bias is involved, IMHO.

And, BTW, I forgot to add this to my post.

1 Corinthians 11:6 "For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered."

You'd have to translate that as:

1 Corinthians 11:6 "For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be bald or bald, let her be covered."

Why would Paul use the word twice like that, if the definitions are the same? Aren't you saying that shorn and shaven mean the same thing?