David333

It's all clothesline preaching and that's all it is. Legalism in the guise of "following scripture." Because I don't think anyone is going to be able to give me a specific length that suddenly, an 1/8th of an inch longer and BAM! Your hair is a sin. That concept is so bogus I can't believe anyone would think it credible. I think maybe 'pants' were in existance in Paul's time but as yet, the only people wearing them were barbarian germanic tribes in dark forests of Europe. The whole pants issue is yet more clothesline preaching invented by legalists. It is the intent of the heart with any of these things, just as Jesus Himself said. amen......amen......and AMEN!!!

Just exactly how short is short, and how long is long? Exactly when does it become a sin? At what measurement? 1 inch? 2 inches? 4 3/4 inches? 8 inches? At what exact length does the hair become a sin? Since it is simply the length of the hair that is the problem and the sin, not the intent of the heart, there must be an exact length at which point it becomes not simply normal, correct-length hair and becomes a sin. What length is that? Patiently awaiting a response from the "experts" on this post, with Scripture to back up the answers. This is a very good point.

Good Point. Can't wait to see the responses to these questions.

I agree totally with all that you have said already. I would like to add one thing that I found during my study of the Word that really sealed the deal with me, and enhanced my, already very firm belief that the Bible is the True Word of the Living God. This thing that I found, I found when doing a word study on the names of God throughout the Scriptures. I have a very good friend of mine who is a member of the United Pentecostal Church, who adheres strictly to the teachings of that denomination, regardless of how much I have prayed about and tried to show her from the Word, the errors of their traditional teachings. Anyway's, the UPC along with many other denominations and cults, teach that the "Trinity" of the Godhead is a lie straight from hell, based on the simple fact that the english word "TRINITY" is not found in the Bible. I, thus far, have not found the word "TRINITY" in any of the english versions of the Bible, nor in the Septuagint, or in the original Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic texts. Also, these different denominations and cults, use one and only one verse of Scripture from the Old Testament (Deuteronomy 6:4) to validate their Traditional Teachings, that the Triune Godhead is a lie, or that there is no such thing, or Biblical teaching on the Plurality of God. Don't take my word for it, but go and get the resources and check it out for yourself. In the entirety of the Scriptures from Genesis to Revelation, this is the only word that is "constructed" or used in this way. The word is translated in the english Bibles as "God". In the original Hebrew text, the word is "Elohiym" (EL - OH - HEEM). From all of the Bible dictionaries, word study resources, and lexicons that I own and have seen/used; this word Elohiym is the only word in the entire world, out of all of the languages of the globe, both ancient and up to modern day that is used linguistically in this way. This is the only word that is BOTH Singular and Plural at the same time, regardless of the context in which it is found written or spoken. Meaning that, to give a minor explanation on word-studies, for those who read this who have not done word-studies. When you get involved in a word-study of the Bible and the Biblical languages, a lot of the time, the context in which you find the word usually will define the word. Contextual definitions do not always apply to all words, and do not apply at all to this word "Elohiym". Nor is this word "Elohiym" like some of our modern day english words that are singular or plural depending on the context in which the word is found. For example, the word "Deer". Watch how the context determins the singularity or plurality of the word. 1. We seen a herd of deer running through the forest today. --- In this case the word is Pluralized based on the contextual setting. 2. I saw a deer drinking from the creek. --- In this case the word is Singular based on the contextual setting. This word "Elohiym", regardless of the contextual setting that it is found in, is always both Singular and Plural at the same time. To me, and others I have shared this with, this signifies the Plurality of God, and gives an Old Testament example of the Trinity, or Triunity of the Godhead.

Very true Shiloh, although the discussion turned toward Herod's intention, I just wanted to address your original question concerning the wise men. From everything I have read in the Bible, it would seem that the wise men were indeed good, even though Herod had sent them for his own evil intentions. t. I would have to add to this that not all the "wise men" mentioned in the Bible were indeed good. I do believe that the wise men who came from the east when they seen Jesus' star in the eastern sky, were good. That would have been the reason they were studying the ancient prophecies, and then came to "worship" Him. Another reason that not all the wise men in the Bible, in my beleif, could have been good is because of the one's that are mentioned in the court of Pharaoh. These were astrologers, soothsayers, sorcers, magicians, medicine men, phsychics, mediums, etc., etc. The same kind that were employed in Herod's Court.

True. The "Traditional" 3 wise men that we see today in the Nativity Scene; and hear about in Bible Stories as children, are based on the assumption that because there were 3 gifts listed that were given to the baby Jesus, there must have been only 3 wise men. I agree with you, that the number of the wise men could be up to and possibly more than a hundred.

No, it's not like that at all. It is completely dissimilar. Paul's statement to eat anything sold in the market was in the context of eating what was sacrificed to idols. Paul was not declaring that the dietary laws of the OT had been repealed. His point was that idols are nothing and thus eating meat sacrificed to idols was not jeopardizing one's salvation before God. You are still misapplying the text. That is absurd. Women wear pants made and cut for women. They are not wearing men's clothes. You are trying to insert modern culture into Scripture. Women wearing pants made for women is not cross dressing. I realize that repressive "1910" hick-town culture can't make room for that reality, but one has to be honest about what actually constitutes "cross-dressing." Cross-dressing is more than just wearing clothes made explicitly for the opposite sex. It is an attempt to take on the appearance and characteristics of the opposite sex. It includes perfume, make up, jewlery, and attitude. It is when a woman or man consciously tries to appear in both appearance and in behavior like the opposite sex. Genuine cross-dressing is a sub-set of transexuality. The "hair" issue in 1 Corinthians occurs in a setting of rampant transexuality and the issues surrounding the believers in that congregation. It was not meant by Paul to be a universal proclamation of how all Christians should appear. Intelligent, thinking people can make the distinction between what is genuine doctrinal material vs. godly advice offered to a specific congregation to deal with a specific need that they have. AMEN!!!

Nothing in the Bible is trivial. I found your post interesting because you are agreeing with me that this is speaking of authority, and that the hair symbolizes being under authority. If there is a difference of opinion, it is just that you don't seem to think it is necessary to follow the guidelines that men have short hair and women have long hair, like it is just enough to understand the deeper meaning. Ok, lets look at what Jesus said in Matthew 13. Now we both know that the Kingdom of Heaven is not a literal "mustard seed", or a literal "good seed", nor is it literally "leaven". He spoke in parables describing what the Kingdom of Heaven is like, to the people He was speaking to. (Metephorical/Symbolical/Figurative Comparison) This is the same exact thing that the Apostle Paul did in 1 Corinthians 11 with the "hair" issue. This issue of one's "hair" as a Biblical Mandate, or God given-guideline, or a Biblical Commandment, is just not so. Rather it is, and has for many, many years been a wedge that the devil has used and is obviously still using today to keep the Body of Christ (if we can even truly call ourselves that, a body),split, divided and of the utmost unproductive use for the Kingdom of God and the Cause of Christ. I never said that it is just enough to understand the deeper meaning of the Scriptures. Rather, I think that before one wholeheartedly pulls a passage of Scripture from the Word and tries to use it as a "guideline", one needs to understand the original intent and cultural application of the passage. In other words, why did St. Paul say what he said, to who he said it to? As we more often, to our detriment, sometimes do, when reading the Word of God we have an automatic vision of how the passage would apply to us in our generation, and in our culture today; rather than to first try and understand the historical/contextual setting of the given passage.

1 Corinthians 11 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. Thank You. This is my point exactley. How can that be your point? You say being "uncovered" is dishonoring the head, while the Word states that "being covered" dishonors the head. But he does mention hair being a covering. 1 Corinthians 11 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. I think your missing Paul's point here. Basically Paul is saying that for a man to pray with a covering other than, his covering "Christ", he will be dishonoring his head, which is Christ.

1 Corinthians 11 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. Thank You. This is my point exactley. Paul can't be talking specifically, or literally about hair because the "covering" on the man is Christ Jesus. Again, Paul is here in this passage using "hair" as a metephorical/symbolic/figurative comparison. Hair = covering. This is also the reason in a previous chapter of the same letter, Paul says,"I would speak unto you Spiritually, but I cannot because you are yet still carnal". Chapter 2:13, 14. Where does it state that Jesus is a covering? 1Co 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ;

1 Corinthians 11 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. Thank You. This is my point exactley. Paul can't be talking specifically, or literally about hair because the "covering" on the man is Christ Jesus. Again, Paul is here in this passage using "hair" as a metephorical/symbolic/figurative comparison. Hair = covering. This is also the reason in a previous chapter of the same letter, Paul says,"I would speak unto you Spiritually, but I cannot because you are yet still carnal". Chapter 2:13, 14.

WOW!!! First, methinks it is very apparent as to why we have so many schisms (denominations) within what was initially intended to be a unified whole (the Body of Christ); or as Jesus Himself said to Peter, "....upon this rock, I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Seems to me, that as long as Born-Again Believers continue to bicker and argue and fuss over such trivial matters, that the devil already has the upper hand. How so? His greatest strategy to steal our Joy from us, kill us, and destroy our witness for Christ, is simply to Divide and Conquer. Anyways, moving on to the original post at hand..... The "real issue" that is being dealt with in this passage, by the Apostle Paul, is not with hair at all. In the same way that Jesus made known the things pertaining to the Kingdom of Heaven by telling parables (Parable = A physical story with a spiritual meaning.), Paul is doing likewise in this passage of Scripture. Paul didn't want us (Christians) to be "splitting hairs" (pun much intended ) over the personal preference/non-salvation/culturally permissible issue of "hair length", or the lack thereof. What Paul was trying to make the Corinthian's and all believers understand is the "Spiritual Authoritative Hierarchy" and where each person individually fits into this system. He is not talking about "hair" in a literal sense, but in a more symbolic way of us understanding the "covering" that we each have over us. Why is this "covering" important? If we will zoom out of chapter 11, and first understand that the Apostle Paul didn't write his letters with chapter and verse seperations (these were added at a later date), we will see that the general gist of Paul's message in the few preceeding and post-ceeding "chapters" is, Prayer. Plain and simple, Prayer. This is why he says that praying without a "covering" is dishonoring to the individuals "head", and thereby ultimately dishonorable to God our Father, seeing that He is the One who instituted this Hierarchy from before, "...In the beginning....". Here is the breakdown of the Spiritual Authoritative Hierarchy: (from 1 Corinthians 11) - 1. God 2. Jesus Christ 3. Man 4. Woman 5. Children (not mentioned by Paul here) Now, one point I must clear up before it gets all muddled up is this. Just because God set this system of Spiritual Authoritative Hierarchy in this order, this by no means, or in any way whatsoever justifies the "superiority" of a man over a woman. In God's eyes and in His awesome plan of Salvation for us humans, the man is not greater than the woman; nor the woman greater than the man. See verses 8, 9, 11, and 12 of 1 Corinthians 11. And Paul makes this a bit more clear in Galatians 3:28. I do pray that what I have spoken thus far has, or will help us to become a more unified Body of Christ. I will not even begin to touch here the extremely divisive Doctrine of "Womens Roles in the Church". God Bless. Shalom......

You are correct in saying that Herod's true intention was not to worship Jesus, but to kill Him. The reason that Herod wanted to kill the baby Jesus was because of the statement that the wise men from the east had made when they entered Bethlehem of Judea. In Matthew 2:2, the wise men from the east entered the town of Bethlehem asking, " where is He that is born "King of the Jews"?". When the magi of the Royal Court of Herod went and told Herod what these wise men from the east were asking, Herod became frightful of losing his position of power, prestige, and authority; because there can only be one King in power at a time. This is the reason that Herod wanted to know the location of the baby Jesus. There is so much to this "Christmas Story" that is never preached or taught on. That is so sad. Notice also what other profound statement the wise men from the east made. They said, "for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him". There is so much more depth to the too often overlooked passages and words used in the Bible. For the last part of that statement, "His Star", read this verse, Numbers 24:17. Just another brief point to ponder; have you ever wondered why Herod gave the order to have all the children two years old and younger slain? I could go on and on and on with this and other intriguing Scripture passages, but I need to stop here so as not to be thought of as trying to start or lead a Bible Study. God Bless, and have a Merry Christmas. P.S. - Too much of the Truth will utterly undermine the Traditional (doctrines) of the Church.

WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH JESUS? Imagine this for a moment. It

HUH???

You are wrong. There are plenty of people that resurrected before Jesus. There was a boy resurrected by a prophet. The guy who fell from the window while Jesus was speaking, Lazarus, etc The guy who fell from the window, fell from the window while St. Paul was preaching in a house church in the Book of Acts, after the Ascension of Jesus Christ to the Right Hand of the Father in Heaven.

See also Genesis 6:6. Here the same Hebrew word is used as in the two verses you mentioned.