1 cor 11 (the hair issue)

[Guest shiloh357]

I would say that it is your belief that you are some kind of expert that knows everything that keeps you from considering the fact you are teaching false doctrine. Your position is completely illogical.

I didn't plan on going down this road, but since you persist, if I were to accept your position, that would mean Jews and Gentiles are under a differen't standard.

That only shows that you really don't understand my position and are unable to frame it correctly. You are reacting to what you think I am saying and are not really paying any attention to what my position really is.

Simply accusing me of having a reading comprehention problem didn't give an adequate defense of your views.

I did not offer it as a defense, but as an assessment of your inability to understand in the simplest terms what I am saying.

Here is why I am right. If the scriptures I gave do not do away with dietary laws, then what scriptures do end dietary laws?

None of the Scriptures "do away" with the dietary laws. Peter explained His vision TWICE and never mentioned an abrogation of any dietary laws. YOU are penciling that into the text. The Bible NEVER offers that meaning to the vision.

You cannot simply plug the dietary laws into any passage about food. The context determines that, not your own arbitrary judgments.

If there are none, then under what authority do Jewish believers think they can eat foods that are not kosher?

Most Messianic Jewish believers are kosher. Some are not. That is between them and God. I don't have time to police what other people do or don't do.

How about the seventh day sabbath? What New Testament passage ends the requirements to abstain from work on Saturday? Are Jewish believers still required to observe the seventh day sabbath?

If you ask them, many think they are as it is seen as an eternal covenant between them and God. Further, there is no commandment in the NT for them to abandon the Sabbath. Many observe the Sabbath and attend Church on the Sabbath.

You have no way of knowing if pride is keeping me from admitting something or not

Yes, I do.

Now who is trying to read something into the text that isn't there?

I am not adding anything. What I am doing is pointing out the spirit of the law. By the standard you are erecting you would have fault Jesus for adding "lust" to the Scriptures pertaining to adultery. Just as one can see that lust violates the spirit of the law pertaining to adultery, tranvestitism violates the spirit of the law pertaining to men dressing like men and women dressing like women. The commandments of God are behavioral paradigms. That is why, in biblical times, no one got off on legal technicalities. There were oils, jewelry, perfumes and garments in Bible times that pertained to women. When God says not to wear what pertains to the opposite sex, more than clothing is implied by the very commandment. It is no different than Jesus claiming that the commandment against adultery extends further than the actual act, but to lust as well.

The problem is, the scripture doesn't go that far. You are taking it further than what is stated and calling it "the spirit of the law." You do that, and then accuse me of taking liberties with scripture with regard to dietary law.

Wrong. I did not accuse you of taking liberties with the Scripture. I accused you of violating context and the basic rules literary analysis. You are ignoring the context of food sacrificed to idols to make it an abrogation of the dietary laws, which makes no sense if Paul is talking to a Gentile congregation that was not under those rules in the first place and thus would not have been the object that Paul had in view. For that reason, it cannot be used to address an issue that Paul was not intending to address.

[Guest shiloh357]

I clearly stated that the man made his own dress from his own pattern. That means it was made for him.

That is not the same thing. I am talking about our culture overwhelmingly allows pants that are cut for women and are meant to be feminine in style. We offer these commercially and our culture does not generally see that as cross-dressing. YOU are trying to take a hyper-literal, wooden face-value approach to the Scriptures on this issue. Same with the hair issue. You are the one going beyond the intent of the Scriptures in your blanket of condemnation of everything that doesn't fit with this hyper-literal approach you take.

Yes, women have worn pants, but it was still looked at as women wearing men's clothes.

But not as genuine "cross-dressing." Your argument depends on YOU defining what is or is not cross-dressing for the rest of us and you don't have the right to do it.

It is simply a deviancy that has become so common, few dare speak out against it.

It is not a deviancy at all. American culture has changed. Women still wear women clothes. Women wearing women's pants is not cross-dressing.

[oldzimm]

I didn't read all the post on this topic, but felt like throwing in this thought just to get the opinion of others.

God has granted us a short time to enjoy his creation here on earth, but he gave us 10 commandments that we must follow. When Jesus came to us in the flesh, he upped the bar on some of those commandments, yet the bases of those 10 commandments are still the same. There is no grey area in the 10 commandments, there is no what if or maybe, break a commandment and you sinned.

I also think there are teachings in the Bible that tells things we should or shouldn't do, like the head being covered or uncovered. These teachings may not be a sin, but sound advice to protect us from the temptation of possibly sinning.

As far as taking my hat off, when I'm praying I do take my hat off out of respect for our father in Heaven.

[Guest]

BUTERO Then once again, I would ask you directly, are Jewish Christians required to eat kosher and keep the seventh day sabbath?

Well

Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify you. Exodus 31:13

Yes

Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. Exodus 31:16

And

Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.

And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.

But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.

And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. Acts 10:12-15

Forever

For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings. Hosea 6:6

[oldzimm]

I didn't read all the post on this topic, but felt like throwing in this thought just to get the opinion of others.

God has granted us a short time to enjoy his creation here on earth, but he gave us 10 commandments that we must follow. When Jesus came to us in the flesh, he upped the bar on some of those commandments, yet the bases of those 10 commandments are still the same. There is no grey area in the 10 commandments, there is no what if or maybe, break a commandment and you sinned.

I also think there are teachings in the Bible that tells things we should or shouldn't do, like the head being covered or uncovered. These teachings may not be a sin, but sound advice to protect us from the temptation of possibly sinning.

As far as taking my hat off, when I'm praying I do take my hat off out of respect for our father in Heaven.

I think most would agree that there is no question with regard to 9 of the 10 commandments, but there is a controversy over the commandment to keep the Sabbath day holy. Some claim it no longer applies, or that it was changed to Sunday. Others claim we are still required to keep the Saturday sabbath. For the most part, I agree with what you are saying.

I find that there are versus in the Bible that tell us we shouldn't squabble on some matters.

Romans 14:1-3 14:1 Now receive the one who is weak in the faith, and do not have disputes over differing opinions. 14:2 One person believes in eating everything, but the weak person eats only vegetables. 14:3 The one who eats everything must not despise the one who does not, and the one who abstains must not judge the one who eats everything, for God has accepted him.

Colossians 2:16-17 2:16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you with respect to food or drink, or in the matter of a feast, new moon, or Sabbath days

[Guest shiloh357]

I don't care which side of an issue you are on, you can find someone who will back up your position, and claim they are historians.

There is a difference between merely finding someone to back an opinion and appealing to universally recognized historical fact that is available in the public domain and is not open to dispute. That women have wore men's clothes without being "cross-dressers" is unversally understood.

I have been to web-sites that promote that it is wrong for women to wear pants, and they do claim pants historically pertain to a man. I also believe you have read books that back up your claims.

So what??? I am not appealing to any of that. I am appealing to information that is in the public square and is readily available without having to go to a website.

They mean nothing because we didn't live in those days. I do not doubt for one second that women wore pants in the 4th century b.c., just as men have cross dressed for a long time too. So what?

The issue is where Scripture is concerned is specific to transexual behavior.

The laws God gave to Israel, particularly the moral laws were, in part, meant to keep Israel from following the behavior patters of the pagans. Transexual behavior has always been a part of paganism and even employed in the worship practices of pagan nations. God did not want Israel, and in particular Israelite priest employing that type of behavior in their worship of Him (Deut. 12: 4, 29-31) It was not just enough to worship the true God, but to also to avoid worshipping Him after the patterns of the pagans and how they worshipped their gods.

Knowing the history and culture of the surrounding nations gives us insight into why God implemented the particular commandments that He gave to Israel. Yes, it was in part, to keep Israel separate, but it was far more than that.

[Guest shiloh357]

BUTERO I am not going back through everything here because some of it is not important, and it just becomes confusing to re-post it. I do want to return to this. Your position is there is no scripture that does away with dietary laws. If there are none, then under what authority do Jewish believers think they can eat foods that are not kosher?

All "food" is clean. There is no such thing as "unclean food." There are clean and unclean meats, but there are no unclean foods. "Food" if defined biblically only comes from clean sources.

As to your question, I guess you will need to ask a Messianic Rabbi. I don't pretend to speak for the Messianic Jewish community.

SHILOH357 Most Messianic Jewish believers are kosher. Some are not. That is between them and God. I don't have time to police what other people do or don't do.

BUTERO Great. What is your position on the matter? Since you claim there are no scriptures that do away with dietary laws, are Jewish believers still required to keep them? What say you?

Personally, I think it is an issue of personal choice. I don't think there is anything wrong with abstaining from unclea meats if a person chooses employ that as an expression of their faith in God.

How about the seventh day sabbath? What New Testament passage ends the requirements to abstain from work on Saturday? Are Jewish believers still required to observe the seventh day sabbath?

Again as to their position, you need to ask them, not me. I personally think it is a good thing, but not required. Like the dietary laws, if you try to mount an argument that the NT does away with Sabbath, you won't be able to do it, as you need a direct commandment from God that explicity says these things are done away with. I would also argue that since these are God's commandments and thus are not really "Jewish" one would have an interesting time explaining why anythng God does or says should be "done away with."

SHILOH357 Yes, I do.

BUTERO Oh, I am sorry Shiloh. You are a mind reader.

BUTERO Now who is trying to read something into the text that isn't there?

Not really. I live around "small town" America and quite familiar with people like you.

SHILOH357 I am not adding anything. What I am doing is pointing out the spirit of the law. By the standard you are erecting you would have fault Jesus for adding "lust" to the Scriptures pertaining to adultery.

BUTERO No I don't. Jesus was pointing out that adultery begins with lustful thoughts. He was never meaning that lustful thoughts are equal to actually committing adultery.

Actually He does exactly that. He says that if a person lusts, they have already committed the sin in their heart. The sin begins in the heart long before it is committed in the flesh.

I have seen a lot of people misuse that scripture to claim their spouse was in adultery and justify an unbiblical divorce.

Sexual lust is marital infidelity. A man who uses porn or who oggles women is doing in heart what he would carry out in the flesh if given the opportunity.

BUTERO Then is it your position that if a man makes a dress for himself, and wears it to your church, and he doesn't wear a bra and fill it with paper, and he doesn't wear make-up and jewelry, he should be accepted? Do you believe others in your church would accept him? How would you feel about him going to work that way?

The day that the vilest sinner is turned away from any church is the day it ceases to be a church. The pastor who doesn't accept that sinner should have his papers pulled, thrown out on his ear and NEVER be allowed to pastor ever again.

[Guest shiloh357]

BUTERO There were women wearing pants made for men and marketed to men, and that led to manufacturers making pants to sell to women. When those women wore pants marketed to men, before it was considered acceptable, were they cross dressing?

Yes, but many of those women were working in factories during WWI and WWWII and had to continue working if their husbands were killed in action and they wore men's clothes because that was what required to work in the machine/welding shops. They were doing work that would have been done for men. They were not wearng men's clothes for fun. In that context, it was not considered unacceptable for women to dress that way, in fact, it was their duty. They made weapons, planes, ships and vehicles for their husbands and continued to make money to keep their children fed at home.

If not, then the man that makes his own dress from his own patter for him should be fully accepted by the people in your church, and in the work place. If not, why? He isn't wearing make-up and jewelry. He isn't a full blown transvestite, and not even a cross-dresser by your standards.

We have transvestites that go to my church. The pastor and his staff knows who they are. It is larger church and no one else knows who they are, but they have not been asked to leave or anything else. The pastor allows them to attend often as they like and in no way makes them feel embarrased or unwelcome for fear that it might push them away from Christ altogether.

By the way, the Bible states that it is a shame for a man to have long hair, and when women have long hair, it is a glory to them. That is pretty plain.

Yes, but that does not occur in vacuum of a specific context. Paul is talking to people, especially men, who are used to wearing long hair in a feminine manner to attract other men. That cannot be factored out. One needs to be aware of the occasion for Paul's comment. Paul is addressing a congregation that is in the middle of a culture that is immersed in and overrun with tranvestite behavior. Corinth was the international poster child of sexual immorality.

BUTERO Yes, women have worn pants, but it was still looked at as women wearing men's clothes.

SHILOH357 But not as genuine "cross-dressing." Your argument depends on YOU defining what is or is not cross-dressing for the rest of us and you don't have the right to do it.

BUTERO But it was looked at as being men's clothes, as you just admitted. Just not "genuine cross dressers," whatever that means?

It means that it was not seen a sexually deviant.

BUTERO It is duly noted that you do not consider it a deviancy.

Nor does any other thinking person. Deviancy, as you are using it refers to what is perverted and abberrent, which pretty much puts in the category of sin. So if a woman wears pants, even if they are cut for women, one would have to conclude that to you, it is a sin.

[Guest shiloh357]

But it was still unlawful. I suppose you could compare it to David eating the show bread, but it was still against God's laws.

No it wasn't because the intent of the law pertained to forbidding tranvestitism and other forms of associative transsexual behavior. Those women were trying to be seen as men. The clothing men wore in those factories were, in part, designed to protect them from being injured and to be loose fitting to give a full range of motion which is necessary in that type of manufacturing in environment. We were trying to win a war and we did what had to be done to win.

If these people are members, then they should be confronted. If they are just visitors, I can understand the position of your church. Surely your church won't allow transvestites to be members in good standing?

Of course not. But neither are they "rejected" by our church leaders.

And once again, it comes down to whether or not a person has faith in the historians.

Which is a convenient crutch when historical data pokes gaping holes in your argument. You have no problem with trusting "historians" who share your views on the KJV. So it appears you have a double standard where historians are concerned. If you don't like what history says, your response is to reject history. At that point, it demonstrates that you are more intersted in protecting your pride than searching for the truth. I guess you will just arbitrarily judge all historians as wrong on that issue.

The immorality of Corinth and the rampant tranvestitism is overwhelmingly testified in the public domain. Secular and Christians both agree on that fact of history. In fact, in the ancient world, to be called a "Corinthian" was to accuse someone of being an immoral person. Many vases have been found depicting transvestitism in ancient Greece, and particularly at Corinth. The worship of Aprhodite was prevalent and ritual prostitution including male prostitution was prevalent and is abundantly attested to by many, many historical sources. Much of ancient Greek romantic poetry of the time period was written to persons of the same sex. In Greek cities like Corinth, laws had to be passed to force men to marry women in order to procreate so the race would not die out. In that culture, heterosexuality was seen as a disease.

Sex reversal was common even in the stories of the gods and especially in the worship of the gods. It was not uncommon for men to worship their gods dressed as women and so it makes perfect sense for Paul to instruct the men to worship with their heads uncovered. When the pagan men covered their heads to worship gods like Aphordite, then Christian men should worship God with their heads uncovered. That is in keeping with Deut. 12:29-31. They were not worship God after the methods of the pagans. That is why a man praying with his head uncovered dishonored God. By praying with his head covered, he was imitating the pagans and that was a dishonoring practice toward God.

It wasn't that the length of hair was intrinsically wrong simply for being long. It was the context of pagan worship and immoral practices that accompanied it that was at issue.

If what I am saying was based on a singular historian, then yes, that should be called into question. The problem is that my points are based on overwhelming, unanimous historical/archeological testimony.

If I don't have the right to define what is cross-dressing, neither do you.

Cross dressing has already been defined. You are trying to foist an artificial definition on everyone else for no other reason than to make a case for your beggardly approach to Scripture.

Again, I know a Pastor with a doctorate, and published books that believes it is a sin for women to wear pants. I would call him a "thinking person." I know of a Baptist minister with a doctorate that has published tracts stating that it is a sin for women to wear pants. He is a "thinking person." Sorry Shiloh, your stereotype doesn't hold water. And yes, I do conclude it is a sin. I thought that was obvious. Sin is a transgression of God's laws according to 1 John.

I know of people with doctorates and have published books who believe that Stonehenge and the pyramids were built by extraterrestrials. Having a doctorate and writing books is no indication that you are not crackpot.

And so since you think that one sin enought to go to hell for, every Christian woman who rejects your bargain-basement "theology," and dies while wearing pant is going to hell for it.

[Guest shiloh357]

That sounds an awful lot like when liberals claim scientific consensus supports scams like global warming. I didn't buy that argument from them, and it looks like based on current weather patterns I was right to reject it, and I don't accept this argument from you.

Actually, there is a world of difference. Global warming has never been proven.

History is different matter. If I were to take your line of reasoning, I could deny that man has been to the moon, but that only makes a fool out of me. I could deny the existence of George Washington, but that is futile. The immorality of Corinth is not only seen in the poetry, but in the art of the time period. Historians didn't make it up. Denying facts of history that are confirmed by both secular and historians only serves to make a fool out of you and it highlights the glaring weakness of your argument.