1 cor 11 (the hair issue)

[nebula]

I realize that repressive "1910" hick-town culture can't make room for that reality,...

Intelligent, thinking people can make the distinction between...

Are these statements really necessary?

Shiloh's Missourian.

I think he knows hick-mentality better than the rest of us. *smirk*

[nebula]

This is beneath you Nebula. That is what is really sad.

How is it beneath me?

As I read your response, this is how I understood your words to mean.

You could explain how I misinterpreted your words.

BUTERO Now we get to the question over the Nazarite vow. First of all, nobody but Samson was commanded to be a Nazarite for life, that I can think of.

NEBULA I fail to understand why it matters. Even if a man took a Nazarite vow for a year, his hair would grow "long" - at least it would no longer be short.

And one did not have to be commanded to take the vow to actually take the vow.

BUTERO In the New Testament, we are told by Jesus not to swear to anything. We are told to let our yea be yea and our nea be nea, so I believe taking such a vow would be wrong. Even so, my point is that it was a specific ordinance used as a sign of being under a vow. It had unique rules those under the vow had to follow.

Secondly, I find no complete guidelines how to take a Nazarite vow if I wanted to. I have an idea of some of the regulations, including abstaing from strong drink, staying away from dead bodies, shaving my head after completing the vow, etc., but I am not sure the list is complete? I would be afraid to take such a vow for fear I might have missed something.

NEBULA Sounds pretty explanatory to me. Do not drink anything fermented ("strong drink"), do not consume any grape product (including raisins - "dry" - and grape leaves - "husks"), put no razor to his/her head and let the hair grow, and stay away from dead bodies.

I do not see what is so complicated about that?

BUTERO It may well be that the rules are all mentioned, but I am not sure that is the case. Because it involves a vow, and a vow is a serious thing in the sight of God, one would need to make sure they understand all the regulations. That is really not my main point anyway. This clearly appears to be an Old Testament practice, as a person is not defiled simply from coming in contact with a dead body today. They were in Old Testament times.

I don't fully understand the purpose of the vow, in other words why take it?

NEBULA So, why does that make a difference?

BUTERO It may mean nothing to you, but if I am going to take a vow, I would like to know why I am doing it? Maybe that doesn't mean anything to you, but it does to me.

Then there is the matter once again of things like being defiled if you come in contact with the dead. How can that be a New Testament issue? We are not automatically defiled when we go to a funeral. This clearly appears to be something that only applied to Israel, and it is not something dealing with God's standard of morality. It is like the matter of when the custom of women takes place. They are not unclean under the New Covenant, but were under the Old Covenant.

NEBULA How can a woman wearing pants versus a skirt/dress be a New Testament issue? Is that mentioned in the New Testament?

BUTERO That is actually pretty simple. It is a moral law verses a ceremonial law. Cross dressing is a sinful practice, and the Nazarite vow is not a sin issue. Taking and violating a vow would be, but the taking of a Nazarite vow is not even required. In order for it not to be a sin for women to wear pants, it would mean cross dressing is ok in the New Testament. It would mean that if a man wears a dress, nobody should say anything, and since we have gotten so liberal with women wearing pants to work and even church, it should be ok for men to wear a dress to work and church. Of course, I don't believe that, and when push comes to shove, I would imagine most women would object to that. I have a solicitation from "Concerned Women For America" over promoting boys wearing skirts. In my Bible Dictionary, the word translated effiminate in the New Testament includes soft dress, which indicates that cross dressing is still sinful in the New Covenant.

I stated that the hair length issue is a New Testament practice. Shiloh seemed to think there is no such thing as a New Testament practice that wasn't in the Old Testament. How about water baptism and communion with bread and wine?

NEBULA Where did John the Baptist get his practice from? He was operating under the Old Covenant at the time, you know.

BUTERO If you can show me anything in the law of Moses telling anyone to be baptised, I would be interested in seeing it?

The hair length issue is a sign of submission to New Testament believers. When I have short hair, I am honoring my head, Jesus Christ. When a woman has long hair, she is honoring her head, her husband. In both cases, we are honoring God the Father as well. When I have long hair, I am dishonoring God.

NEBULA Why? How?

Why is it not dishonoring to a man in the Old Covenant to have his hair long in order to fulfill a vow of separation to the Lord but it is dishonoring in the New Covenant?

BUTERO How am I dishonoring God with long hair? 1 Cor 11:4 "Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head." How is the woman dishonoring her head having short hair? 1 Cor 11:5 "But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is e3ven all one as if she were shaven."

Do you want to argue over who the head of the man and the head of the woman are? 1 Cor 11:3 "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God."

Why is it not dishonouring Christ in Old Testament times? Where there is no law, there is no transgression. There was nothing in the Old Testament prohibiting men from having long hair. In the case of the Nazarite vow, the hair was a sign of being under the vow. It is really no differen't than them having to abstain from pork under the Old Testament as a sign of separation from the heathen nations, and today, we can eat anything sold at the market, which is a sign that the gentiles have been included into God's plan of salvation. There are some differences from the Old and New Testament, not only in the way we conduct ourselves, but when it comes to things used as a sign.

Here are my comments to Nebula about the Nazarite vow. Rather than reply to anything I said, all Nebula could do was make a false accusation that I was somehow attacking or disrespecting the Nazarite vow. I would challenge anyone to show how I did either? I made my case that the Nazarite vow was an Old Testament practice. I mentioned how we are not to swear according to Jesus, but let our yea be yea and our nea be nea, so I shouldn't take a vow. I also mentioned that because I take vows serious, I would like to understand the purpose of the Nazarite vow and all of the ordinances before agreeing to become a Nazarite. Again, if anyone can show how those comments were attacking a person who took a Nazarite vow, I would like them to say so. Then I can respond to the charge on substance, as oppose to an absurd generalization.

Firstly, I can't figure out what is quoted material versus your new comments. This made it difficult for me to respond to specific points.

Secondly, when I read you saying that Jesus commanded us not to take a vow, which makes the Nazarite vow a sin, I perceive you either do not understand it or you, as I said, disdain it.

Or you are saying God changes.

So which is it?

[Guest shiloh357]

BUTERO I am not misapplying anything. In Peter's vision in Acts, it becomes clear that the reason certain animals were unclean was because they were a sign of separation from the unclean and idol worshipping gentile nations.

SHILOH No, the vision according to Peter who explained it TWICE was that the animals represented the Gentiles whom the Jews called unclean. God sent the vision three times because of the three Gentiles whom led Peter to Cornelius' house. Peter said that the meaning of the vision was that He was not to call Gentiles unclean. That is the ONLY meaning Scripture applies to the vision.

BUTERO Yes, the animals did represent the gentiles. In the vision, Peter was told to eat those unclean animals, and he said, he never ate anything unclean. He was told that he should not call unclean, that which God cleansed. This gives us a picture of why the dietary laws existed in the first place. It showed the Jews to be a separate people from the unclean and idol worshipping gentile nations around them. Now the gentiles were accepted and made clean by the blood of Jesus, so there was no need for the dietary laws. As a matter of fact, they denied the accepatance of the Gentile nations.

It really makes no difference whether or not the other passage is speaking of foods sacrificed to idols, because it still plainly states we can eat anything sold in the market place.

You are going beyond what Peter said and the Bible's definition of the vision. Peter did not, and the NT does not say that the vision declares the dietary laws repealed. That goes beyond what Scripture says and enters into to your own conjecture. YOU are assigning something to the vision that the NT does not assign to it. You are extending the vision to mean that the dietary laws are repealed, but if you were challenged to produce chapter and verse that makes that explicit claim, you could not produce it. The Bible does not say that the sole purpose of the dietary laws were to keep them separate from the gentile nations.

BUTERO No it didn't. It showed the Jews that they were a separate people from the unclean gentile nations, but since that is no longer the case, they are now free to eat anything sold in the market place.

It doesn't say, you can eat foods sacrficed to idols sold in the market place. It says you can eat anything sold in the market place.

Actually that is basically what is being said because that is what follows the line of thought in that passage. Paul is talking about meat sacrificed to idols, not what is clean or unclean according to the law of Moses. YOU are arbitrarily assigning values to the text apart from the context and intention of the authory. If Paul wanted to extend "clean and unclean" to the issue of God's dietary laws, the text would reflect that. He is talking to people who were already eating pork, who did not consider pork unclean. Paul NEVER once references God's dietary laws, that is not the issue and would not even fit the context. The Corinthians were dealing with a different issue.

SHILOH The context only allows for us to apply this to the issue at hand, not to any issue we see fit. That's the problem; we have people like you who just run with whatever seems right to them and completely ignore the object the text and the author have in view.

BUTERO I have actually taken the time to seek out the reason for the symbolism and the change, something you are ignoring.

I am not ignoring the fact that you really have done nothing but forced a value on the dietary commandments that the Bible doesn't. You claim to go only by the Bible, but if pushed to provide chapter and verse, you can't.

If I were to take your arguments to heart, I would have to conclude that the Jews and believing gentiles are under differen't laws.

If that is your conclusion based on what I have provided, you would only prove that you know just enough to be dangerous.

It would mean the Jews must still remain kosher, but the gentiles can eat anything they want.

Actually if you paid any attention and had any reading comprehension skills, you would see that I am saying that the passage you are trying to use a passage that does not address the issue. I am not claiming that anyone MUST keep the dietary laws. I am simply disagreeing with your choice of passages to make tha point.

You are so concerned with what you consider to be context, you are overlooking the obvious reason for the dietary laws.

I am concerned with context because the context is on my side. You are ignoring context because things like literary analysis requres one to think outside one's little box and it doesn't allow for what you are saying.

Yes, people market what pertains to a man to women today because they will buy and wear it. That still doesn't make it right.

SHILOH Markeing pants made for women to women is what they are doing.

BUTERO And if I were to market an evening gown to men, the same people defending women wearing pants would attack the evening gowns for men. There is a clear double standard that exists.

A man in a sundress and nothing else is ugly. Men cannot exactly get away with what women can. That is true. That is why men have to add make up, , paint their nails, wear wigs and jewelry, shave their legs, arms, etc. change their walk and their style of speech in order to pull off women's clothes. Men who wear women's clothes go out of their way to appear as women. You don't see men just walking around in women's apparel trying to be manly. Genuine cross-dressing is part of transvestitism. I have seen genuine female cross dressers, though they are less frequent. It is really gross.

I had an aunt that worked for the phone company and she wore flannel shirts and cover-alls/over-alls because she had to scale telephone polls in the summer heat and the dead of winter. She had to dress like a man to do her job. She also had to have short hair due to the hazards that job has for long-haired people. She was not "cross-dressing. I doubt the Lord was looking down on her like she was Jezebel for that.

No, cross dressing isn't more than just wearing apparel that pertains to the opposite sex.

SHILOHYes it is.

BUTERO We will have to agree to disagree on this, because I am not going to change my mind. I don't have to wear make-up and jewelry to cross dress. I could do so by simply putting on one of my wife's skirts.

You are just in denial. You don't konw what you are talking about.

[Guest shiloh357]

Concerning dietary laws, since you seem to understand my point, though you dissagree, I won't go through all of that again, except to say I stand by everything I said, and will continue to. I have spent a lot of time studying this matter, and believe I am correct, regardless of how you feel.

Your position is indefensible and you know it. It's just your pride that keeps you from admitting it.

With regard to cross dressing, the Bible states the woman is not to wear what pertains to the man, neither is a man to wear a woman's garment. It doesn't stretch that to say anything about a man putting on make-up or jewlery in order to break this law.

Yes, but it doesn't have to. The Law of Moses does not cover every detail because it is establishing a set of behavioral paradigms. What is not directly addressed can be inferred by what it addressed. God's point is that men are not to attempt to make themselves appear as women and vice-versa. The connotation (spirit) of the law is to prevent trans-sexual behavior.

What you are talking about is a transvestite, which is going beyond simple cross dressing.

The Bible is speaking against transvestitism.

Again, I would bet that if a man were to make a dress for himself, and wear it to your church, he would not be accepted. I would also say that if a man were to make a nice looking dress to work, he would be sent home. In many places, if a man has long hair, he will be sent home. There is a clear double standard between men and women. This is simply because over time, women have continued to wear men's clothes to the point it has become mainstream. I suppose if we had some "trend setting" men who wanted to force the issue and wear dresses, over time, their cross dressing would become mainstream too. All this means is society is on a downward spiral towards Sodom and Gommorah, and what was once considered sinful no longer is. Look at what they get by with in tv and movies today, compared with say the 1940s? Does that mean society has become better? Does it mean we have evolved to a more cosmepolitan state, as opposed to being a bunch of repressive hicks?

There is a difference between women wearing pants made for women, and men wearing dresses. There are no dresses made for men (unless you count the scottish kilt). Probably never will be. I would never wear one even if there were such a thing.

Women have been wearing pants for centuries. Going back as far as 4th century Persia up to WWI, women have been wearing pants. Women in horse riding competitions wore riding pants for as long as they have been allowed to compete. Women who worked in the factories during WWII wore pants. "Rosie the Riveter"was constantly depicted on posters wearing overalls.

While our culture views pants as primarily male attire, our culture in no way views women wearing pants as genuine cross-dressing. Cross-dressing as a cultural statement is usually accompanied other types of trans-sexual behavior.

[sheya joie]

Couple of things. Concerning the Nazarite vow, there is this in the Book of Acts, where four men who were apparently Jewish Christians had apparently taken the Nazarite vow (since they would end the vow by shaving their heads):

Acts 21:23 Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them;

24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.

25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.

26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.

And the other thing, about men and dresses - men of old wore robes, which certainly look a lot like dresses. How do you tell the difference?

[Guest LadyC]

Concerning dietary laws, since you seem to understand my point, though you dissagree, I won't go through all of that again, except to say I stand by everything I said, and will continue to. I have spent a lot of time studying this matter, and believe I am correct, regardless of how you feel.

Your position is indefensible and you know it. It's just your pride that keeps you from admitting it.

With regard to cross dressing, the Bible states the woman is not to wear what pertains to the man, neither is a man to wear a woman's garment. It doesn't stretch that to say anything about a man putting on make-up or jewlery in order to break this law.

Yes, but it doesn't have to. The Law of Moses does not cover every detail because it is establishing a set of behavioral paradigms. What is not directly addressed can be inferred by what it addressed. God's point is that men are not to attempt to make themselves appear as women and vice-versa. The connotation (spirit) of the law is to prevent trans-sexual behavior.

What you are talking about is a transvestite, which is going beyond simple cross dressing.

The Bible is speaking against transvestitism.

Again, I would bet that if a man were to make a dress for himself, and wear it to your church, he would not be accepted. I would also say that if a man were to make a nice looking dress to work, he would be sent home. In many places, if a man has long hair, he will be sent home. There is a clear double standard between men and women. This is simply because over time, women have continued to wear men's clothes to the point it has become mainstream. I suppose if we had some "trend setting" men who wanted to force the issue and wear dresses, over time, their cross dressing would become mainstream too. All this means is society is on a downward spiral towards Sodom and Gommorah, and what was once considered sinful no longer is. Look at what they get by with in tv and movies today, compared with say the 1940s? Does that mean society has become better? Does it mean we have evolved to a more cosmepolitan state, as opposed to being a bunch of repressive hicks?

There is a difference between women wearing pants made for women, and men wearing dresses. There are no dresses made for men (unless you count the scottish kilt). Probably never will be. I would never wear one even if there were such a thing.

Women have been wearing pants for centuries. Going back as far as 4th century Persia up to WWI, women have been wearing pants. Women in horse riding competitions wore riding pants for as long as they have been allowed to compete. Women who worked in the factories during WWII wore pants. "Rosie the Riveter"was constantly depicted on posters wearing overalls.

While our culture views pants as primarily male attire, our culture in no way views women wearing pants as genuine cross-dressing. Cross-dressing as a cultural statement is usually accompanied other types of trans-sexual behavior.

totally agree with you shiloh. i also wanted to just bring up the following points...

With regard to cross dressing, the Bible states the woman is not to wear what pertains to the man, neither is a man to wear a woman's garment. It doesn't stretch that to say anything about a man putting on make-up or jewlery in order to break this law.

makeup pertains to a woman, does it not? and feminine jewelry also pertains to a woman. and as i've pointed out countless times in the past in similar threads, back in the days when the bible was written and paul was saying these things, neither man nor woman wore pants. or dresses. they all wore robes. but it was apparently quite easy to distinguish the feminine robe from the masculine robe.

[Openly Curious]

I look at 1 Corinthians as dealing with authority as some has pointed out. However it mentions in the passage "because of the angels" this also is shown to us and why authority is even mentioned in 1 Cor 11 it is because "Christ Jesus, the man and the woman were all created a little "lower than the angels. Yhis is important because we will be resurrected above3mjkjngels just as Christ Jesus will be resurection above the angels and man"

Psalm 8:4-5--What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? # 5) thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.

Hebrews 2:4-9--God also bearing them witness, both with sigbs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will? vs 5) For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak. vs 6) But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man that thou art mindful of him? or the Son of man, that thou visitest him? vs. 7) Thou madest him a little lower than the angels thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands: vs 8) Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him. vs. 9) "BUT WE SEE JESUS, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man hope I'e brought out my views and are not confusing anyone blessings

[Guest shiloh357]

Concerning dietary laws, since you seem to understand my point, though you dissagree, I won't go through all of that again, except to say I stand by everything I said, and will continue to. I have spent a lot of time studying this matter, and believe I am correct, regardless of how you feel.

Your position is indefensible and you know it. It's just your pride that keeps you from admitting it.

With regard to cross dressing, the Bible states the woman is not to wear what pertains to the man, neither is a man to wear a woman's garment. It doesn't stretch that to say anything about a man putting on make-up or jewlery in order to break this law.

Yes, but it doesn't have to. The Law of Moses does not cover every detail because it is establishing a set of behavioral paradigms. What is not directly addressed can be inferred by what it addressed. God's point is that men are not to attempt to make themselves appear as women and vice-versa. The connotation (spirit) of the law is to prevent trans-sexual behavior.

What you are talking about is a transvestite, which is going beyond simple cross dressing.

The Bible is speaking against transvestitism.

Again, I would bet that if a man were to make a dress for himself, and wear it to your church, he would not be accepted. I would also say that if a man were to make a nice looking dress to work, he would be sent home. In many places, if a man has long hair, he will be sent home. There is a clear double standard between men and women. This is simply because over time, women have continued to wear men's clothes to the point it has become mainstream. I suppose if we had some "trend setting" men who wanted to force the issue and wear dresses, over time, their cross dressing would become mainstream too. All this means is society is on a downward spiral towards Sodom and Gommorah, and what was once considered sinful no longer is. Look at what they get by with in tv and movies today, compared with say the 1940s? Does that mean society has become better? Does it mean we have evolved to a more cosmepolitan state, as opposed to being a bunch of repressive hicks?

There is a difference between women wearing pants made for women, and men wearing dresses. There are no dresses made for men (unless you count the scottish kilt). Probably never will be. I would never wear one even if there were such a thing.

Women have been wearing pants for centuries. Going back as far as 4th century Persia up to WWI, women have been wearing pants. Women in horse riding competitions wore riding pants for as long as they have been allowed to compete. Women who worked in the factories during WWII wore pants. "Rosie the Riveter"was constantly depicted on posters wearing overalls.

While our culture views pants as primarily male attire, our culture in no way views women wearing pants as genuine cross-dressing. Cross-dressing as a cultural statement is usually accompanied other types of trans-sexual behavior.

totally agree with you shiloh. i also wanted to just bring up the following points...

With regard to cross dressing, the Bible states the woman is not to wear what pertains to the man, neither is a man to wear a woman's garment. It doesn't stretch that to say anything about a man putting on make-up or jewlery in order to break this law.

makeup pertains to a woman, does it not? and feminine jewelry also pertains to a woman. and as i've pointed out countless times in the past in similar threads, back in the days when the bible was written and paul was saying these things, neither man nor woman wore pants. or dresses. they all wore robes. but it was apparently quite easy to distinguish the feminine robe from the masculine robe.

Good point. I am sure that women's robes had distinctive tailoring and cuts that set them apart from men's robes. In fact, I would posit that as the ancient cultural parallel to women's shirts, pants, etc. that are cut differently than men's shirts and pants. The garment called "pants" is asexual. It is the way those pants are designed that makes them male or female

[nebula]

The terms of the covenant changed. Certain portions of the law were never intended to continue forever. From the very start, they were temporal. My problem with what you said is the way you made out like I was attacking Nazarites. That is like saying I am attacking the Levitical priests because I don't support a return to animal sacrifices. The only reason I wouldn't support animal sacrifices today is because there is no reason for them. Did God change? No. He never intended them to continue. The same thing applies to the current system. It won't continue forever either. We will go through the great tribulation, and then into the millenial reign. Those periods won't continue, because they will lead to a new heaven and a new earth. Does God change? No. This was his plan from the beginning.

It is not so much a sin to take a vow, but we are advised not to because of the serious nature of a vow. Remember the story of the man who took that vow to sacrifice whatever came out of his house to greet him after he returned from a successful battle, and it turned out to be his daughter? Vows are serious, so we are advised not to take them. It is not a sin to take a Nazarite vow, but neither are we told to do so under the New Covenant, and I don't see how we become unclean because we come into contact with the dead under the New Covenant? If you can show me that we still have issues with being ceremonially unclean as Christians, I might reconsider this.

You are seriously missing the point.

The Nazirite vow was a vow of dedication to the Lord. That's all we know. But the point is that it was a dedication to the Lord.

Why would hair length be an issue under the New Covenant and not the Old? Why would it be ordered for a vow of dedication to the Lord for a man to grow his hair out under the Old Covenant, but then a man growing his hair out would be a sin in the New Covenant?

[Guest shiloh357]

My position is that robes never have pertained specifically to a man or a woman.

Based on what? Do you have actual historical data that corroborates that assumption?

Dresses have always pertained to a woman and pants have always pertained to a man.

Historically, that is not true. Women have been wearing pants since the 4th Century BC.

That is the difference. I have had to take a second look at skirts, because the kilt does go back a long way, and is a type of skirt. I suppose it could reasonably argued that a skirt is not exclusive to women, but that is for another discussion.

Again, you are making assumptions about history without any historical data.