Marty Ballestero doesn't LIKE facial hair on men!!

[Kevin Archer]

Originally Posted by jfrog

I takes a good man to hear the scripture and not get angry at what it's saying especially when someone is pointing that in his direction

I wish I would have handled the opposite situation more like you

I hope that I never get offended at the Word.

Sometimes, men teaching for doctrine the commandments of men, is offensive.

We don't have to be twins to be brothers.

[Reader]

In addition, regarding circumcision, consider Acts 15

15 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.

2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.

3 And being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren.

4 And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them.

5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.

What was decided on the matter? That circumcision was not needed.

Paul taught on this in Galatians. Considering it all, one should not use one isolated instance of Paul circumcising Timothy to link it to a standard today in an attempt to prove today's practice is biblical.

[kclee4jc]

Originally Posted by Reader

In addition, regarding circumcision, consider Acts 15

15 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.

2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.

3 And being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren.

4 And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them.

5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.

What was decided on the matter? That circumcision was not needed.

Paul taught on this in Galatians. Considering it all, one should not use one isolated instance of Paul circumcising Timothy to link it to a standard today in an attempt to prove today's practice is biblical.

I'm not trying to prove the that the Bible requires shaving. I am saying it is a custom, a tradition, a preference. I am also saying that if Paul would have brought Timothy to work with the APostolic Church in the 21st century, he would have had him shave.

As I said...it is not an offense to God. I am aware of that. I believe these elders are aware of that. It is, however an offense to some men, and one who desires to follow peace with all men and walk in fellowship and harmony with good, holiness believing brethren, will simply shave.

[Reader]

Originally Posted by kclee4jc

I'm not trying to prove the that the Bible requires shaving. I am saying it is a custom, a tradition, a preference. I am also saying that if Paul would have brought Timothy to work with the APostolic Church in the 21st century, he would have had him shave.

Yet the Apostolic church of the 21st century encompasses much more than those who believe one must shave. There are so many variables involved in the standards that I do not believe Paul would have had Timothy make any changes for Apostolics. Their mission was to reach those who did not know Jesus and not those who already did.

Titus did not change. Paul didn't ask Titus to change because of believers who felt circumcision was necessary to be saved. He vehemently taught against this.

In contrast, Timothy allowed himself to be circumcised in order to be accepted by Jews in the area because his father was a Greek and this was well known. Take note that this happened right after the Christians decided that circumcision was not necessary and that Timothy was going to help Paul and Silas to deliver the message from the apostles about this matter. It would appear it could have been for his safety as well as to make it a non-issue among the Jews since he was part Jew. Remember- days before they had ruled against teaching that one was to be circumcised and in this Titus was not circumcised.

16 Then came he to Derbe and Lystra: and, behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess, and believed; but his father was a Greek:

2 Which was well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and Iconium.

3 Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.

4 And as they went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Reader

Yet the Apostolic church of the 21st century encompasses much more than those who believe one must shave. There are so many variables involved in the standards that I do not believe Paul would have had Timothy make any changes for Apostolics. Their mission was to reach those who did not know Jesus and not those who already did.

Titus did not change. Paul didn't ask Titus to change because of believers who felt circumcision was necessary to be saved. He vehemently taught against this.

In contrast, Timothy allowed himself to be circumcised in order to be accepted by Jews in the area because his father was a Greek and this was well known. Take note that this happened right after the Christians decided that circumcision was not necessary and that Timothy was going to help Paul and Silas to deliver the message from the apostles about this matter. It would appear it could have been for his safety as well as to make it a non-issue among the Jews since he was part Jew. Remember- days before they had ruled against teaching that one was to be circumcised and in this Titus was not circumcised.

16 Then came he to Derbe and Lystra: and, behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess, and believed; but his father was a Greek:

2 Which was well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and Iconium.

3 Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.

4 And as they went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem.

Ok but according to your theory then they should shave if they come among us?

[Reader]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Ok but according to your theory then they should shave if they come among us?

No, Titus did not change because of believers who felt circumcision was needed to be saved.

You will not find examples of such in the New Testament.

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by Reader

In addition, regarding circumcision, consider Acts 15

15 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.

2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.

3 And being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren.

4 And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them.

5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.

What was decided on the matter? That circumcision was not needed.

Paul taught on this in Galatians. Considering it all, one should not use one isolated instance of Paul circumcising Timothy to link it to a standard today in an attempt to prove today's practice is biblical.

With beards making a come back, by your reasoning Bro. Epley needs to grow a beard. I would be more impressed if he grew some hair on top of his head!! LOL

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by crakjak

With beards making a come back, by your reasoning Bro. Epley needs to grow a beard. I would be more impressed if he grew some hair on top of his head!! LOL

Do it Lord.

[Aquila]

What I don't understand is why, if there needs to be a "beard standard", the standard isn't in favor of beards? Because historically beards were worn and regarded as tokens of masculinity, pertaining to a man. Historically, it was pagans who shaved their faces to look like boy servants or women. Even the most effeminate of Rome prided themselves on their smooth faces. Why make an indicator of femininity and effeminacy the image of the church???

Making such a standard is as arbitrary as making a standard requiring that we wear tin foil hats.

Frankly, if ancient commentary is considered... the "old time" standard of the church throughout the earliest centuries is in favor of beards. So those honoring our being men by wearing beards are taking a more "conservative" position based on a more "old time" standard. A standard that is indeed... ancient.

[Reader]

Originally Posted by Aquila

What I don't understand is why, if there needs to be a "beard standard", the standard isn't in favor of beards? Because historically beards were worn and regarded as tokens of masculinity, pertaining to a man.

This brings to mind an Old Testament incident in 2 Samuel 10

And it came to pass after this, that the king of the children of Ammon died, and Hanun his son reigned in his stead.

2 Then said David, I will shew kindness unto Hanun the son of Nahash, as his father shewed kindness unto me. And David sent to comfort him by the hand of his servants for his father. And David's servants came into the land of the children of Ammon.

3 And the princes of the children of Ammon said unto Hanun their lord, Thinkest thou that David doth honour thy father, that he hath sent comforters unto thee? hath not David rather sent his servants unto thee, to search the city, and to spy it out, and to overthrow it?

4 Wherefore Hanun took David's servants, and shaved off the one half of their beards, and cut off their garments in the middle, even to their buttocks, and sent them away.

5 When they told it unto David, he sent to meet them, because the men were greatly ashamed: and the king said, Tarry at Jericho until your beards be grown, and then return.