"Beards are sin!" False doctrine?

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

It doesn't indicate their being saved or not.

Sure it does. James doesn't address them as "brethren." IN FACT, he beings verse one with "My brethren" and then verse two talks about these two guys going into "your (the brethren's) assembly." Elsewhere throughout James, he identifies others as brothers and sisters, but not the rich man or poor man.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Now, if you wish to see them as unsaved visitors, that still doesn't change the polemic. Unless you're trying to say we should only care about how we treat visitors and not the saints of God.

I'm not the one trying to use this scripture to apply it to a situation, you are.

Originally Posted by Aquila

James 2:4
4 Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?

The ESV renders it more accurately:

James 2:4 English Standard Version (ESV)
4 have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?

Here, James clearly states that the saints who show such partiality are making "distinctions among yourselves", not "distinctions among the visitors".

Again, James is not including the two visiting men in this. Remember, verse one is addressed to "My brethren," and verse two talked about these two guys coming in to "your (the brethren's) assembly."

The "among yourselves" to which James is referring are the "My brethren" he addressed in verse one.

Here's a modern example: two visitors walk into a church. A group of people are gathered in a clique and began to (using the ESV) "make distinctions among themselves" about the visitors.

Also, why would the two in James be judging themselves? Makes no sense when you read it clearly.

Originally Posted by Aquila

You know that's not what I'm saying.

No, I understand you just want something to try and use against those who prohibit beards from ministry.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by n david

Sure it does. James doesn't address them as "brethren." IN FACT, he beings verse one with "My brethren" and then verse two talks about these two guys going into "your (the brethren's) assembly." Elsewhere throughout James, he identifies others as brothers and sisters, but not the rich man or poor man.


I'm not the one trying to use this scripture to apply it to a situation, you are.




Again, James is not including the two visiting men in this. Remember, verse one is addressed to "My brethren," and verse two talked about these two guys coming in to "your (the brethren's) assembly."

The "among yourselves" to which James is referring are the "My brethren" he addressed in verse one.

Here's a modern example: two visitors walk into a church. A group of people are gathered in a clique and began to (using the ESV) "make distinctions among themselves" about the visitors.

Also, why would the two in James be judging themselves? Makes no sense when you read it clearly.


No, I understand you just want something to try and use against those who prohibit beards from ministry.

I believe that James is addressing the Jews in general as his brethren. He is not addressing an individual church for sure. And his congregation is hypothetical.

[Truthseeker]

Originally Posted by Amanah

no, the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, and Western Roman Catholics were clean shaven.

Julian the Apostate grew a beard in protest to the Roman Catholic Church.

So it’s a pagan custom then.

I should have been more clear, I was referring to American culture.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

So it’s a pagan custom then.

I should have been more clear, I was referring to American culture.

I don't think the founding fathers had beards, so it's their fault.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Is it hypocrisy to forbid our ladies to wear necklaces, and allow our men to wear necklaces (in the pulpit)?

I'd like nDavid to respond to this please?

I believe you meant neckties, not necklaces for men.

I don't believe a lady should be in the pulpit . . .



Honestly, a necktie serves no useful purpose or function. It's main role is to provide color and pattern with a suit.

In much the same manner, the necklace serves no useful purpose or function. It's main role is to provide beauty to the lady wearing it.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by n david

I believe you meant neckties, not necklaces for men.

I don't believe a lady should be in the pulpit . . .



Honestly, a necktie serves no useful purpose or function. It's main role is to provide color and pattern with a suit.

In much the same manner, the necklace serves no useful purpose or function. It's main role is to provide beauty to the lady wearing it.

Sometimes I get confused and call them man necklaces. So, do you allow neckties in the pulpit?

[n david]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Sometimes I get confused and call them man necklaces. So, do you allow neckties in the pulpit?

The Pastor of the church I attend does not prohibit ties.

This is where you ask why the hypocrisy, since the UPC has taken a position against necklaces but not neckties.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Sounds like Gospel Assembly meetings (the ones I've been to, anyway). Also, sounds like an independent oneness pentecostal house church we were with back in Houston years ago. In fact, sounds like the first UPC I ever went to (where I got baptised). Except none of those were filled with 15 plus minute gaps of total, embarassing silence, punctuated by whispery quiet monologues about nothing doctrinally or various cat lady "testimonies". The Quakers ain't got a corner on anybody's market, though, cause back when I was a "troubled teen" the PDAP meerings were about the same. In fact, come to think of it, the PDAP meetings were more lively than the two Quaker meetings I've been to.

Lol

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

Sure it does. James doesn't address them as "brethren." IN FACT, he beings verse one with "My brethren" and then verse two talks about these two guys going into "your (the brethren's) assembly." Elsewhere throughout James, he identifies others as brothers and sisters, but not the rich man or poor man.


I'm not the one trying to use this scripture to apply it to a situation, you are.




Again, James is not including the two visiting men in this. Remember, verse one is addressed to "My brethren," and verse two talked about these two guys coming in to "your (the brethren's) assembly."

The "among yourselves" to which James is referring are the "My brethren" he addressed in verse one.

Here's a modern example: two visitors walk into a church. A group of people are gathered in a clique and began to (using the ESV) "make distinctions among themselves" about the visitors.

Also, why would the two in James be judging themselves? Makes no sense when you read it clearly.

James wrote:

James 2:4 English Standard Version (ESV)
4 have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?

The elders/saints showing partiality towards the two in attendance are said to have, "made distinctions among yourselves" by judging and showing partiality towards the rich brother over the poor brother. This couldn't be said if the two they judged were not brethren and counted among their number.

No, I understand you just want something to try and use against those who prohibit beards from ministry.

No. I'm only pointing out that it is a sin to show partially between brethren. Since a beard isn't a sin, like you said, such a standard unnecessarily divides the body, and makes brethren with facial hair second class Christians.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

No. I'm only pointing out that it is a sin to show partially between brethren. Since a beard isn't a sin, like you said, such a standard unnecessarily divides the body, and makes brethren with facial hair second class Christians.

Unnessercery divides the body, like some preachers saying that if you don't have a beard you are effeminate.

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Amen! And GOD created and designed the beard to be on a mans face. They are fighting against God!

Hey, if the elders and the church family are cool about wanting no beards then have at it. If the elders and the church family are cool with having beards have at it. 12 Tribe community you either have a beard or you are not in their club period. That's what they want, their members are willing and wanting to go along with the program. If I don't like it I can take my dollies and move down the road. No harm, and no foul. All this "divide" the Body stuff is a bunch of triple venti latte snowflakes and soft hands. If you walk into a church and the men all have beards and you aren't into it then take it on down the line. If you walk into a church and their clean shaven as a baby's hind end, wearing suits with black ties, white shirts, and ferragamo slippers, but that's not your cup of Joe Bandy, then time to go. 80,000 different denominations, churches, and schisms in this country alone so you have quite a selection to be the church of your choice on Sunday or Saturday.