Holiness and the Facebook Generation

[*AQuietPlace*]

Originally Posted by Papabear

separated from the world in looks is part of the whole idea of separation,

You can not separate separation from appearance... in trying to illustrates a basic and fundamental misunderstanding of what the word means... from a biblical and logical definition.

How was Jesus separate, in looks, from the world of his day?

[GrowingPains]

Originally Posted by Papabear

The bible teaches and speaks directly to the hair issue, but ... who cares what the bible says... we can rationalize it away.

We can take a Text centuries old and not rationalize it away, but dig into and understand it for what it is. Surely you aren't against hermeneutics? Surely, you don't claim to have such a revelation of scripture that you don't have to even examine it closely? Or are you one of those cultured and conditioned to interpret the text lazily for whatever meets your credenda?

[GrowingPains]

Originally Posted by Papabear

separated from the world in looks is part of the whole idea of separation,

You can not separate separation from appearance... in trying to illustrates a basic and fundamental misunderstanding of what the word means... from a biblical and logical definition.

Please explain.

[KWSS1976]

And as far as I know they all wore robes back then..Do we today.........????????? Don't get me started o wait you already have...LOL

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

How was Jesus separate, in looks, from the world of his day?

And this is close to the heart of the matter, and also starts entering in the "relevance" area.

Most, including Papabear, hold up Jesus (and the cross and His message) as not being relevant at the time He lived, yet he dressed according to their modern customs and ate what they ate and knew what parables to tell, etc.
If He had come in THIS day, would he have still wore a robe? No, he would probably be wearing jeans. He would have also spoke the modern language of the day (including, dare I say, some modern "geek" terms when it comes to technology). Would he have spoke from the side of a hill? He probably would have used a stadium and modern PA system. I would call that being "relevant".

Obviously no one here thinks we need to keep wearing robes and sandals, so what is the difference when someone says we don't need to dress like the 1940's or 50's?

[Brother Todd]

Brother, I love this post, and appreciate it. After also looking at your website, I see how balanced you are with us taking hold of the advantages of technology and some marketing to let others know we're there to minister to the community, but not also depending on marketing to be our witness and build a church.

I appreciate the standard and burden you have, especially for being a real people that make a difference in the lives of those they encounter because they've come out of a prayer closet where they've sought the face of God, and have digested His Word into them transforming their lives.... not coming out trying to look like the latest fad, or use the trendiest terminology to be "relevant".

[Brother Todd]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

And this is close to the heart of the matter, and also starts entering in the "relevance" area.

Most, including Papabear, hold up Jesus (and the cross and His message) as not being relevant at the time He lived, yet he dressed according to their modern customs and ate what they ate and knew what parables to tell, etc.
If He had come in THIS day, would he have still wore a robe? No, he would probably be wearing jeans. He would have also spoke the modern language of the day (including, dare I say, some modern "geek" terms when it comes to technology). Would he have spoke from the side of a hill? He probably would have used a stadium and modern PA system. I would call that being "relevant".

Obviously no one here thinks we need to keep wearing robes and sandals, so what is the difference when someone says we don't need to dress like the 1940's or 50's?

I guarantee you Jesus would have been modest....Jesus would have be respectful of the House of Worship.... and be covered up.

[KWSS1976]

Pants do not cover up a lady Bro.Todd....???

[Papabear]

this whole exercise of waxing philosophical and thoughtful with the intent of subtracting what the bible says concerning those things that we have chosen to disavow is an approach we see the results all around us.

I am not afraid of Biblical study and digging deep into it as you like, as long as the intent is to strengthen what the text says, as opposed to dissect it to make it say what we want it to say.

This subtraction by addition is an approach to scripture that I believe is the original deception.

What is the reason for the question? to strengthen or devotion or find a reason not to obey what God and his word has said.

... but I know much to my sadness of heart... minds can not be changed when the heart is already cold....

If we followed the pattern of prayer and consecration in seeking God, this discussion would not even be necessary. But alas, we live in the days of great wisdom and deception... and often it is difficult to discern between the two.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Papabear

separated from the world in looks is part of the whole idea of separation,

You can not separate separation from appearance... in trying to illustrates a basic and fundamental misunderstanding of what the word means... from a biblical and logical definition.

Do you look any different from the world? What would indicate to us by looking at you that you are One-God apostolic?