Beards, and no I’m not marrying one!

Anglicans like to say that we follow the Bible, informed by the first 5 Councils and first 500 years of the church. The Trullo Council was in 692 AD and is accepted by the Eastern Orthodox, but Anglicans don't.

"Left-handedness of the adversary"? Is this why some folks in the middle ages thought left-handedness was a sign of the devil?

I think it's worth noting that even within the first 500 years and 5 Councils, the spiritual condition and theological understanding of the church were not static. I don't thing we should view all 500 years/5 Councils with equal weight. It makes no sense to paint a bright red line in time and say, everything on one side is perfectly fine and everything starting 1 second later is not. The further in time from the Ascension and the days of the Apostles, the more errors crept progressively into people's thinking. Thus the first 100 years give us the most solid view of orthodoxy, the second hundred years less so, the third hundred years somewhat less so, and fourth hundred years still less, and so on.... in other words, a sliding scale. While the fathers of the 5th Council and the period from 401 AD- 500 AD may still inform our understanding of Scripture, they do so with less perspicacity than their predecessors.

By the time we get to Trullo (in Constantinople, late 7th. Century) we can safely assume that some things are going to be considerably messed up.

 

Which is exactly where we get the word sinister from, as opposed to the righteous and good 'dexter', and even the word 'right' (as opposed to wrong), from which we get dexrous and dexterity, meaning adroitness and skill of hand.

I wonder though if Jesus had been left handed, would people have thought him demonic?

Perhaps he was; left handed that is, (not demonic, that's unthinkable). He was perhaps winking at the crowd, as he said "If your right hand causes you to sin", knowing perhaps that he was himself left handed so was not including himself, (being sinless and all).

The church, in the world most certainly progressively got more and more ignorant of the wisdom and purposes of God as the Apostolic age receded further and further into past history. What I'm not so sure about is that it could be plotted as a straight line on a graph in the way you seem to be suggesting. Certainly there was a downward trend for quite a few centuries but interspersed were some peaks of occasional enlightenment. I am doubtful though that the outset at Pentecost could be represented by a logarithmical infinity ∞ of wisdom, joined to any other point in time at a place somewhere near zero, with a straight line. Certainly though by the time we get to Trullo (in Constantinople, late 7th. Century) we can safely assume that some things are going to be considerably messed up. True, so very true. When we see what was going on in the churches that Paul founded and what was going on in the Jerusalem church and in Galatia, let alone most of the churches of Asia mentioned in Revelation, early it may be but it does not seem to be exactly a high point in the 'spiritual condition and theological understanding of the church'. If truth were known the graph might look more like the FTSE index over the first two millenia, with a particularly interesting bell curve somewhere round about the Reformation but with some wild swings up and down at that time as well. Quite a lot of stake burnings, witch ducking and beheading going on around that time, as well as some ignorance being dispelled.

.

 

.

 

Perhaps a parabolic curve, with occasional deviating blips.....

 

Agreed!

 

Where are you getting this five councils position? The quote usually had in mind when discussing councils, from Lancelot Andrewes, is:

One canon reduced to writing by God himself, two testaments, three creeds, four general councils, five centuries, and the series of Fathers in that period – the centuries that is, before Constantine, and two after, determine the boundary of our faith.
​

 

I don't know, I thought that's what was said here on the forum. Did I remember the wrong number? Sorry about that. Okay then, FOUR councils... better still as far as I am concerned. Thanks for the correction.

 

He didn't say she was an Episcopalian....

 

First of all, you attributed this to nothing less than the 6th Ecumenical Council. Now you're saying it was a local council at Trullo. Can you acknowledge that you were misquoting texts from online inaccurate/misinformed apologetics?

Secondly, this is in 692, which is really late, and by then the Church has already experienced considerable corruption (Nicea II is a much bigger example, and just a few years away).

Thirdly, it's only a local council and has not had universal authority.

 

I cannot say that I am misquoting, but I can say I am perfectly quoting inaccurate/misinformed apologetics. But still this is from sources of holy well intentioned people who I find quite a bit less crazy than a lot of people I would run into on any given Sunday at TEC. In all honesty the beard thread was something I pursued with ... um... less intense search for truth! I am however growing mine in, I’ve read enough to convince me to do that, but that is just my private opinion at this point and I’m not going to proclaim to the clean shaven in my parish either they rebuke their razors, repent and grow beards or it’s hell for them. @Stalwart, just don’t always take me so seriously, but I’m pleased you care enough to not want to see my soul in hell!!!!!!

 

They’re filling the Internet with propaganda to delude the emotionally vulnerable masses. How well-intentioned can they actually be?

Who said anything about TEC? A genuine question

Anyway I realize that you have non-rational considerations on this whole issue so I’ll stop trying to use reason in this conversation. I hope that you find peace.

 

Matching Kilminster moles??

 

You do realize, don't you, that you're supposed to grow a beard out, not in? We don't want you to suffer from hundreds of ingrown hairs!!

 

Hey beardies!

You do realise that sheep don't have beards I suppose?

Some goats don't either but most do.

https://www.treehugger.com/difference-between-sheep-and-goats-4858720

If I were you I would at least avoid sporting a goatee beard. Go for the full Abraham in which birds could nest.

(Just trying to treat this subject with the gravity it deserves)

 

A GOATEE? Oh my! When our Lord separates the sheep from the goats, I wouldn't want Him to mistake me for a goat! LOL!

 

Listen, I come here and most of the time post serious stuff because I respect the views of all here so much. The beard thing really needs to be treated in a lighthearted way. But I’m not ever going to waste your time, it’s amazing what I learn here, even about facial hair.

in a few months perhaps I’ll post pics of my holy facial hair, unless I die from Covid.

 

I've had a beard a few times. I don't like them at first, but then they sort of grow on me.

 

I'm just lazy. I found it more irksome trimming a beard and keeping it kempt, than shaving off every morning in the shower.
.

 

Beards... grow on me. Get it?

That's right up there with the old joke that England has no kidney bank, but it does have a Liverpool...

 

I did get it, (very droll), but like corvid I was trying to ignore it.
.