how about y opinion about man with long hair?

[nebula]

What was the "covering" given to the father of lies....

Scales?

Eze 28:13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God;

every precious stone was thy covering

, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.

14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.

15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

God gave to the anointed cherub a glorious apparel to complement the position he held with God in His creation. His garment was a divine majestic adornment given to him.

Oh - you meant before he led Adam and Eve into temptation.

[Guest man]

It does have to do with authority, and verse 3 is a major key to understanding it. The hair length is a sign of being under submission to our spiritual head.

so the shorter your hair the more submission you have?

This passage in 1 Corinthians chapter 11 is not nearly as hard to understand as people want us to think it is. If you will simply look at it with an open mind, you should be able to get what the Apostle Paul is saying.

so, since you have given us your own version of the Word of God, let me ask you this.

Is "short hair" and "long hair" a matter of personal preference, or is there a set length that is applicable for all people?

Perhaps you would gain a better understanding if you were to put aside your argumentative spirit prior to reading his posts.

Just a thought.

[Guest Butero]

If it were a personal thing between you and God and God told you to wear your hair a certain length, that would be one thing. But you are taking a nondoctrinal passage about an issue that pertained to a single congregation and are making it a doctrine that you seem to think is binding on everyone.

Wearing long hair, in the manner the Corinthians were accustomed to WAS dishonoring to God, not mention a major stumbling block for male believers who were getting saved out of that homosexual culture. They had to change how they appeared to others. They had to cut their hair and change a number of other things in order to come into line with how they should live as believers.

Paul is not trying to create doctrine; there is not one ear mark of doctrine. This was meant to be applicable specifically to the Corinthian audience. It may contain spiritual truths for all of us, but it is not necessarily applicable to everyone in the same manner it was to the original audience.

Before I respond to this, I do have a question about the "historical evidence." What kind of evidence exists to prove the claims of the historians? Do they have eyewitnesses from the Corinthian Church, and if so, where are they? Do they have ancient writings to verify the claims, and if so, what are they? In addition to that, how does anyone know they are right? I have a book of gnostic writings, so does that mean that the things they say are true unless we can prove they are wrong? Show me some actual evidence, and then I will agree you have a point. So far, you have provided nothing. You haven't provided the names of the historians or the proof they have to back their claims up. Feel free.

On this comment, we are in 100 percent dissagreement. I don't buy into the argument that this only applied to the Corinthian Church. If we are going to go down that road, we can say that about anything. I could claim that Romans chapter one doesn't deal with all homosexuals, but that it only applied to a certain group of Romans. I could claim that Jesus' teachings on divorce only applied to the audience he was talking to. I could use that kind of argument to find a way around anything I want that I don't like. I could claim that since the epistles are letters to individual churches, they only apply to them and nobody else, making the Bible null and void to anyone else.

This is not a nondoctrinal passage. That is the most ridiculous claim I have heard yet. 2 Timothy 3:16 says, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" Are you now going to make the claim that 1 Corinthians 11 is not scripture?

I don't know your heart Shiloh, or that of anyone else here, but it appears you will say anything to prove yourself right, even at the expense of destroying the authority of the Word of God. It may be that you really believe what you are doing is right, but when you make the kind of arguments you are here, it opens the door for others to do the same thing in other areas, some of which you may believe do apply today. I am just the type of person that would rather take the Bible at face value and follow it, rather than find ways around it.

[Guest Butero]

4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoreth his head.

I'd still like to know how you explain this statement in light of the fact that Jewish men would cover their heads with a tallit when they prayed.

Simple. It is not talking about that kind of covering. It is talking about hair. The same mistake is constantly being made by women today that think they have to wear a veil. The veil is not their covering. Their long hair is.

Explain your reasoning to me, please.

Explain my reasoning for what? Knowing that the hair is the covering rather than a hat or veil? It is in the text. Notice that in 1 Corinthians 11:15 it says, "But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. It is not a veil or a hat but her hair. The previous verse says of the man Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? It doesn't say it is a shame for him to wear a hat.

I disagree.

Paul did not say, "Every man praying or prophesying, having long hair."

also: "6 For if the woman be not covered , let her also be shorn : but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven"

1. to sheer: a sheep

2. to get or let be shorn

3. of shearing or cutting short the hair of the head

If long hair is what Paul means by "covering," then why would he say, "If a woman has short hair, let her also have her hair cut short"?

In the later verses when Paul says: "13 Judge in yourselves * : is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? 14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair , it is a shame unto him? "

He is using hair length as an example to emphasize his point.

I am adding this to my original post. This is a New Testament teaching, which is not accepted by the Jews, so the question is really irrelivant.

What about Jewish believers?

I don't know of any place in scripture where Jewish believers or anyone else are told to wear any kind of hat. That is nothing more than a tradition, and it didn't have it's origins in the law of Moses or in scripture.

You missed the point of my question.

You said the teaching was not accepted by Jews. But what about Jewish believers? Did they or did they not accept this teaching?

Nebula, how can you say the hair is not the covering when the text specifically states it is? Look carefully again at verse 15:

But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

It doesn't say anything about a veil or hat. It mentions her hair, and the entire passage is dealing with hair. As far as what Jewish believers hold to, I don't see the relevance there either. That would be like asking all gentile believers how they view this passage? Some would see it one way and others another way. If you got 100 Jewish Christians together at random, I seriously doubt that they would all wear prayer coverings on their head, and I doubt all 100 would see this passage in the same way? If you got 100 Jewish Christians together, I would imagine they would not see the sabbath all the same, or the feasts or many other things. Some would continue to observe them and others would not.

[Guest Butero]

I am also unaware of anything in the law of Moses that tells all Jewish men to wear those head coverings. It is a tradition, not a commandment.

Well, this provokes a question. When did hair length first become an issue to the Lord? With this writing?

I don't know of any place in scripture where Jewish believers or anyone else are told to wear any kind of hat. That is nothing more than a tradition, and it didn't have it's origins in the law of Moses or in scripture.

As for when hair length became an issue, I would assume it is in New Testament times? If you go back to verse 3 of 1 Corinthians chapter 11, we are told that "the head of every man is Christ" and right after that in verse 4 we are told "every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head," meaning Christ.

But why was this commandment given? And why only to the Corinthian church?

Why would a "rules and regulations" commandment (akin to "the law") suddenly pop up out of no where?

The Jews have rejected Christ, with the exception of Jewish Christians, and again, I don't know where they are told anywhere in the Bible to wear a hat?

They aren't told to wear long hair, either.

You are starting out with a flawed argument at the beginning, because you are trying to question how come Jewish people do something they are never commanded to do in the first place with something in scripture. Just because Jewish people have a tradition of doing something doesn't mean it is God ordained.

My point is that: "

[Guest Butero]

So then, perhaps you could expound then on Paul's intent, since you have scriptures clearly showing you, what did he mean by "For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels?"

Please, explain. You cannot dismiss it just because you think the hair is the final covering being addressed.

Yes the hair serves as a natural covering and adornment of the woman, but we are also speaking of when a man and woman is "praying or prophesying."

1Co 11:4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.

5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

So we clearly have two things which Paul specifically states which you have not yet addressed, the "when" and the "why," or "for this cause."

Why is the long hair given to the women as a glory?

1Co 11:15 But if a woman have long hair,

it is a glory to her

: for her hair is given her for a covering.

And are you confident that the " hair is given her for a covering" is not the thing requiring an additional covering lest her "glory" detracts from the glory God?

1Co 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as

he is the image and glory of God

: but the woman is the glory of the man.

So again I submit for everyone's consideration, why do the angels cover their face/heads with their wings?

Isa 6:2 Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly.

So they do not detract in anyway from the glory due God.

For how did sin even enter into God's creation?

What was the "covering" given to the father of lies who corrupted wisdom and fell into iniquity by looking at his own glory which also was given to him by God as an adornment to compliment his position with God Himself?

Think it through . . .

I really like your questions here.

It's a shame that Butero's only response is, "Don't know, don't care."

Because I would enjoy reading a debate/discussion digging into this.

It is not so much, "Don't know, don't care" as it is , the reasons don't matter when it comes to simply obeying. If this wasn't an attempt to make something null and void until we fully understand all the intricate details, I would agree with you. There is no reaon not to dig into the whys, but If God says something is dishonoring Christ, I can avoid doing it while I am seeking to find out why it dishonors Christ.

[Guest Butero]

What was the "covering" given to the father of lies....

Scales?

Eze 28:13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God;

every precious stone was thy covering

, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.

14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.

15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

God gave to the anointed cherub a glorious apparel to complement the position he held with God in His creation. His garment was a divine majestic adornment given to him.

On that point, I stand corrected, but what does that have to do with a woman having long hair? Long hair is still the woman's covering, so what is the point?

[Guest Butero]

It does have to do with authority, and verse 3 is a major key to understanding it. The hair length is a sign of being under submission to our spiritual head.

so the shorter your hair the more submission you have?

I was already asked about this in another post, and already answered it. The Bible only says a man's hair is to be short. The short hair is a sign he is under submission to Christ. It doesn't say the shorter it is, the more he is in submission. On the other hand, if it is long, it is a sign of rebellion. Long is long and short is short.

[Guest Butero]

Butero Since we are having so much trouble coming to agreement over the topic of men with long hair, I thought I would try something differen't. I decided to interview the Apostle Paul. Perhaps he can help us? Paul, can you answer the question being asked? What is your opinion of a man having long hair?

Apostle Paul Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

Butero How do you feel about a woman's hair? Do you believe women should keep their hair long?

Apostle Paul If a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

Butero Can you elaborate further as to why women should have long hair and men should have short hair?

Apostle Paul A man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

Butero What are your thoughts about a man with long hair praying or prophesying?

Apostle Paul Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.

Butero And what of the woman?

Apostle Paul Every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

Butero You spoke of the man and woman dishonoring their head. Who is the head of the man and woman?

Apostle Paul 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.

Butero I feel confident that there will be some men that will continue to keep their hair long and some women that will continue to keep their hair short, in spite of what you have said. How are we to look at them?

Apostle Paul If any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

Butero Thank you for taking the time to speak to us through your letter to the church at Corinth.

This passage in 1 Corinthians chapter 11 is not nearly as hard to understand as people want us to think it is. If you will simply look at it with an open mind, you should be able to get what the Apostle Paul is saying.

[nebula]

The Bible is a book.

Actually, it's more than just a book.

Things don't have to be repeated over and over throughout to make them valid.

I never said anything about repetition.

I'm speaking purpose.

Yes, this teaching does "pop up out of nowhere." So what? The Bible is the Word of God to man, and I have never bought into the notion that if something isn't repeated over and over it doesn't matter. I don't think that being a necromancer is mentioned but once in the entire Bible in Deuteronomy 18:11. You could say it "popped up out of nowhere?" Does that mean it is ok to contact dead spirits because it was only mentioned once and to the children of Israel that came out of Egypt? Does that mean it didn't apply to anyone except the actual audience Moses was speaking to at the time?

It isn't about how many time it is mentioned.

With necromancy, one can say why it is commanded against.

You are unable to do this with the hair length passage - referring to your response to BlindSeeker.

Paul mentioned the angels for a reason. How can anyone be persuaded to your position if you can't take the challenge to dig deeper?

I don't know of any place in scripture where we are told that if we cannot figure out what Old Testament truth is being revealed to us again in the New Testament, they don't apply.

The Bible is a unified whole.

Taking any passage apart from the unified whole is where false doctrines come from.