Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

A follower of Jesus

Basic Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Religion

Previous Fields

  • Gender
  1. Also in answer to the question of why "supposedly christian" women dress immodestly. I believe a lot of the problem is due to the femminist movement. Women who were not christians in heart did not want to be in subjection to there husbands authority any longer so they wanted a way to show their supposed freedom. Unfortunately many of the women today have been taught this abhorrence of authority and find it hard to subject themselves to God or man. If a woman wears a garment that draws attention to her body in a way that causes lustful thoughts in another petson whether. that woman is Muslim or Christian then she is defrauding that man if he is not her husband because she isn't supposed to have lustful relations with anyone but her husband. Solomon said be ravished with the wife of thy youth and not in another. So Placids preference of man or woman being covered from the knees to the neck to the elbows is a good one to me. Though i prefer to cover down past the knees and most all the time past the elbows. :-) But not everyone has reached the level of sanctification that compels them to dress to that level of modesty unfortunately . So in most cases if not all I would say that a women whose neckline shows much more than her neck then at some point she is liable to be showing something that will cause lust and she is responsible even if she doesn't want to be. If a watchman would and will be held accountable in judgement for not warning the one in danger of sinning or in the middle of sin then surely a person who causes another to sin by their action OR dress will be held accountable if they do not confess and repent.
  2. In reply concerning The Noble Ladies of the Jewish or Israeli people wearing a veil to cover their face it should be noted that in Genesis chapter 38 and verses 14-19 the daughter-in-law of Judah son of Abrahams son Isaac in verse 14 kjv"She put her widows garments off from her, and covered her with a veil, and wrapped herself, and set is open place which is by the way to Timnath. ..." In verse 15, "When Judah saw her, he thought her to be an harlot; because she had covered her face. " In verse 19, it says, "And she arose, and went away, and laid by her veil from her, and put on the garments of her widowhood." But in chapter 29 Jacob did not realize that Leah had been given him in marriage and not Rachel until the morning came (verse25). So obviously the veil or something was used to cover Leah's face at her wedding to make her unknown until the morning. So it seems that virgins being married wore veils to cover their face but a woman who wore a veil and sat in an open place was a harlot or prostitute. And that widows and in the case of Sara in chapter 12 of Genesis as aforementioned in a previous post a married woman did not cover her face. A veil covering the head but not the face. In the pentecostal holiness movement the women do not wear either because of the aforementioned 1 Corinthians 11 where the Apostle Paul cites nature when he says in verses14-15 KJV" Doth not even nature itself teach you, that,if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?But if a women have long hair it is a glory to her:for her hair is given to her for a covering." The women wear long hair and the men have short hair so we feel we are in accordance with God's Word. Also this theory of the meaning of this scripture is in accordance with the Jewish custom of men having short hair but wearing a prayer cap. Tbey are not dishonouring their head if they wear a hat because their hair is short. I don't remember seeing a Rabbi with long hair. Another thing was mentioned about the Nazarite vow. While under a Nazarite vow, an Israelite did not cut his hair but at the end of his time promised he had to shave not just cut but shave his head and offer the hair in a sacrifice. He could not keep the long hair afterwards. This is why Samson in the book of Judges lost his strength after Delilah cut his hair. He was to be a Nazarite from birth till death. In other words he was to be dedicated to God from birth to death for a Nazarite was making a vow of dedication when he went under the vow. The Apostle Paul did this in the New Testament. Delilah cut Samsons hair and God took his strength because he had broken his vow to God by telling her that if she cut his hair he would lose his strength when he knew she wanted him to lose his strength (see previous verses). So he in essence willingly broke his vow. Some people confuse the verse in Matthew chapter 2 verse 23 to mean that Jesus was under a Nazarite vow and therefore would have had long hair. But Jesus was a Nazarene because he dwealt in Nazareth just like the Samaritan woman was from Samaria and the Canaanite woman was from Canaan. It seems reasonable to think that if the soldiers plucked his beard at the crucifixion then they certainly would have ripped his hair out if he had long hair. But none of the gospel accounts of the crucifixion note that. Though it would have been just as horrendous an experience and just as well noted when his disciples saw him afterward.
  • Create New...