|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 27, 2015 23:23:15 GMT -5
Bob: Could you provide some books documenting this? My google search pulled up mostly trinity and info re HS. Thanx CK I think it's really difficult to google this topin on the internet because and relevant references would probably not appear until about page 500 -- not a popular research topic. There are a number of researchers who have written about this, but the best one I have found is: Freeman, Charles A. D. 381Interesting pages: 56, 63, 89, 96, 100, 158, 164 Page 132 describes the adoption of the trinity the way the 2x2s have described William Irvine – it never happened, it was from the beginning. The size of the book might scare a person, but it's not difficult reading, and extremely well documented. PS: See how I read books now?!?!?!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2015 13:58:41 GMT -5
I'd very much doubt if he had long hair, considering what Paul wrote to the Corinthians: "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?" Paul was a Greek -- and there the men cut their hair - originally on order of Alexander the Great. Jesus was a Palestinian Jew, and beards and long hair was the modesty for men there, as with all the other men in the OT with beards and dread of having their hair cut off because it made them lose their strength -- Remember Sampson. that was only the nazirite order that did that not the entire Hebrew nation...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazirite
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Apr 28, 2015 15:23:09 GMT -5
Quote - "Don't forget the black stockings, as in my day! All through WWII, professing women had a hard time finding black stockings. I have seen my mother have to buy the beige ones & then dye them black."That's about a valid as saying "They must change. I professed under Eisenhower administration and now there's Obama!"
Professing people don't dress for the sake of black stockings - they dress to be moderate, respectful and grave (these are words you find in the Epistles)
So if black stockings, or suits and ties, or hats or whatever, are considered appropriate for expressing moderation, respect and gravity - then you wear them. If beards are considered respectful then respectful men wear beards. If beards are considered radical hippy stuff then respectful men won't wear a beard. The facial hair changes - the notion of respectfullness doesn't.
Did Jesus, for instance, wear a beard and long hair? I can't say - it would dependon what was considered appropriate in His time and place. What do you mean by : "That's about a valid as saying "They must change. I professed under Eisenhower administration and now there's Obama!"
Bert, were you professing during WWII? Were you even born then?
Or is that you simply don't believe that I know what I'm talking about? Do you think I'm a liar?
Because if you were around during WWII, you either didn't notice, don't remember or you are simply in denial of the fact that women HAD TO wear black stockings during that time!
I'm tired of your denying what I am saying. Are you accuising me of being a liar ?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Apr 28, 2015 15:38:12 GMT -5
Bob: Could you provide some books documenting this? My google search pulled up mostly trinity and info re HS. Thanx CK I think it's really difficult to google this topin on the internet because and relevant references would probably not appear until about page 500 -- not a popular research topic. There are a number of researchers who have written about this, but the best one I have found is: Freeman, Charles A. D. 381Interesting pages: 56, 63, 89, 96, 100, 158, 164 Page 132 describes the adoption of the trinity the way the 2x2s have described William Irvine – it never happened, it was from the beginning. The size of the book might scare a person, but it's not difficult reading, and extremely well documented. PS: See how I read books now?!?!?! It seems that you have to buy the whole book if you want to read the interesting pages. www.amazon.com/AD-381-Heretics-Pagans-Christian/dp/1845950070
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Apr 28, 2015 16:11:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 28, 2015 16:12:34 GMT -5
I think it's really difficult to google this topin on the internet because and relevant references would probably not appear until about page 500 -- not a popular research topic. There are a number of researchers who have written about this, but the best one I have found is: Freeman, Charles A. D. 381Interesting pages: 56, 63, 89, 96, 100, 158, 164 Page 132 describes the adoption of the trinity the way the 2x2s have described William Irvine – it never happened, it was from the beginning. The size of the book might scare a person, but it's not difficult reading, and extremely well documented. PS: See how I read books now?!?!?! It seems that you have to buy the whole book if you want to read the interesting pages. www.amazon.com/AD-381-Heretics-Pagans-Christian/dp/1845950070Ask them to tear out the interesting pages and send them to you. Anyway, the whole book is interesting -- those are only pages that discuss the trinity. In any case, even people who have read only one complete book are not that educated on ANY matter.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 28, 2015 16:14:53 GMT -5
That's the point. First they decided, then they composed the Bible.
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Apr 28, 2015 16:19:32 GMT -5
Another way of saying you don't believe the Bible, Bob.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 28, 2015 16:23:53 GMT -5
Paul was a Greek -- and there the men cut their hair - originally on order of Alexander the Great. Jesus was a Palestinian Jew, and beards and long hair was the modesty for men there, as with all the other men in the OT with beards and dread of having their hair cut off because it made them lose their strength -- Remember Sampson. that was only the nazirite order that did that not the entire Hebrew nation...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazirite
That article isn't about the rest of the Hebrew nation. It's only about the nazarites. Really religious Jews even today do not shave.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 28, 2015 16:25:14 GMT -5
Another way of saying you don't believe the Bible, Bob. What do you mean by "believe the Bible"?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2015 17:28:05 GMT -5
Certainly I believe women 'had' to wear black stockings when these stockings were considered respectful. That's the standard our church kept. I like Bob's point - if you were a Jew then beards were respectful and you would have 'had' to wear a beard. In Paul's world short back and sides was respectful so for Paul you 'had' to be shorn. We can be sure from what Paul wrote that men had to be short back 'n sides even in the depth of winter. Another point - I take notice of what women in my church wear today. And its just about everything and anything. Reason? It appears to me that the sheer diversity of clothing and the absolute riot of color in our fabrics (even our foods and cars) means that color doesn't have any social significance anymore. Once a professing woman wouldn't wear red. Red cars were a no no. Then red clothing signified sexuality, promiscuity, loudness, wanting attention, rebellion etc.. Now red has no meaning - and its safe to have. And that's nice for me because I like to see women in red! And if trousers continue to be worn by women for generations to come then trousers will be the standard, and conservative folks will frown upon girls in dresses.
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on Apr 28, 2015 17:31:36 GMT -5
Certainly I believe women 'had' to wear black stockings when these stockings were considered respectful. That's the standard our church kept. I like Bob's point - if you were a Jew then beards were respectful and you would have 'had' to wear a beard. In Paul's world short back and sides was respectful so for Paul you 'had' to be shorn. We can be sure from what Paul wrote that men had to be short back 'n sides even in the depth of winter. Another point - I take notice of what women in my church wear today. And its just about everything and anything. Reason? It appears to me that the sheer diversity of clothing and the absolute riot of color in our fabrics (even our foods and cars) means that color doesn't have any social significance anymore. Once a professing woman wouldn't wear red. Red cars were a no no. Then red clothing signified sexuality, promiscuity, loudness, wanting attention, rebellion etc.. Now red no had meaning - and its safe to have. And that's nice for me because I like to see women in red! And if trousers continue to be worn by women for generations to come then trousers will be the standard, and conservative folks will frown upon girls in dresses. I feel a song coming on by Chris de burgh
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2015 17:31:41 GMT -5
I suspect some Workers don't understand this notion. Recall when a young guy was told to shave his beard off. The Worker said to the effect "Aren't you happy with the face God gave you?" Even Paul said "doesn't nature teach you its a shame to have long hair?"
Which is odd - men's faces and head are *** naturally *** hairy.
|
|
|
Post by stevnz on Apr 28, 2015 17:39:01 GMT -5
Extracts from the introduction to AD 381
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Apr 28, 2015 17:47:07 GMT -5
The belief that the Father and Son are one substance is Oneness doctine Which is different from 3 separate persons making up God. I do not aspire to the Oneness doctrine.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 28, 2015 18:44:18 GMT -5
Certainly I believe women 'had' to wear black stockings when these stockings were considered respectful. That's the standard our church kept. I like Bob's point - if you were a Jew then beards were respectful and you would have 'had' to wear a beard. In Paul's world short back and sides was respectful so for Paul you 'had' to be shorn. We can be sure from what Paul wrote that men had to be short back 'n sides even in the depth of winter. Another point - I take notice of what women in my church wear today. And its just about everything and anything. Reason? It appears to me that the sheer diversity of clothing and the absolute riot of color in our fabrics (even our foods and cars) means that color doesn't have any social significance anymore. Once a professing woman wouldn't wear red. Red cars were a no no. Then red clothing signified sexuality, promiscuity, loudness, wanting attention, rebellion etc.. Now red has no meaning - and its safe to have. And that's nice for me because I like to see women in red! And if trousers continue to be worn by women for generations to come then trousers will be the standard, and conservative folks will frown upon girls in dresses. Something like the way the women have gotten over the "bun" requirement,. huh?
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Apr 28, 2015 19:30:24 GMT -5
Dmm said that her mother could not find black stockings and had to dye brown ones black so hardly the fashion or appropriate then. Pants for women are the fashion or appropriate as you call it, now and have been for a long time but those in your church still consider them men's clothing, Bert.
|
|