how about y opinion about man with long hair?

[nebula]

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.

That's a sucking milk attitude, not an eating meat attitude, though.

[nebula]

but what does that have to do with a woman having long hair?

1 Cor 11:10 - Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.

Did Paul put this in here for no reason?

[BlindSeeker]

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.

Oh my . . . I can't believe you were able to figure out my motives . . .

[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.

The point of the passage is not to prescribe the length of one's hair, it is about one's attitude toward authority. If you prefer your hair short because it is cooler or because you are uncomfortable with longer hair (insert definition of long hair here), so be it. But if you are thinking that the shorter a man's hair, the closer he is to God, then you need to go completely bald. By the same token, you cannot use this passage to justify forcing women to adopt the wearing of a prayer covering when her attitude and conduct is such that there is no doubt as to her submission to her spiritual head. The passage is not about who wears what on their kopf, their noodle, their cabesa - it is about attitude toward and submission to authority. "Man looks at the outward appearance but God looks upon the heart" - 1st Samuel 16:7

Actually, I can use this passage any way I believe is correct. Yes, it is to prescribe the length of one's hair, and the hair length shows whether or not someone is in rebellion or under God's authority. Whether I prefer it long or short is irrelevant. The Bible says it is a shame if a man has long hair and that he is dishonoring Christ.

By the way, I already addressed the scripture in Samuel that you took out of context. That scripture was dealing with how men looked upon a man that was tall looking like a King compared to someone in their youth. This had nothing to do with something a person could control. This dealt solely with the way God created them.

[Guest Butero]

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?

that verse does not mean that every verse in the Bible is doctrine.

Really? Then tell me what it does mean RG? It says "All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine." It says All. What method do you intend to use to twist the word all around to mean something differen't from the obvious meaning?

[nebula]

I'd like ot go back and have this point addressed.

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.

[Guest Butero]

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.

I didn't say the Bible is just a book. I said it is a book. Are you going to tell me that the Bible is not a book? If not, then my comment is correct. It is only when you add your own words "just a book" it fails to be true anymore.

I told you why hair length matters. It is a sign of submission. I cannot tell you why God chose to have the children of Israel use a serpent on a stick to look upon for healing? Why a serpent? It doesn't matter why. If they didn't look upon the serpent, they would have died. Maybe they should have sat around debating the why back then before obeying?

This is not my opinion. The Bible states word for word that it is a shame for a man to have long hair and says it dishonors Christ. Your real question should be, "How does God expect anyone to be persuaded to his view if he isn't more clear?" Take that up with him on judgment day.

Ignoring scripture and saying something doesn't say what it clearly is creates false doctrines as well Nebula.

[Guest Butero]

Actually, I can use this passage any way I believe is correct. Yes, it is to prescribe the length of one's hair, and the hair length shows whether or not someone is in rebellion or under God's authority. Whether I prefer it long or short is irrelevant. The Bible says it is a shame if a man has long hair and that he is dishonoring Christ.

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

It requires common sense, just like it required common sense for people that lived in Montana to drive a reasonable and prudent speed when they had no speed limit on rural interstate highways. People were still getting tickets for driving too fast, even when there was no posted limit.

[Guest Butero]

this discussion reminds me a great deal of the women wearing pants issue. some people make a whole doctrine out of one verse in the Bible. a friend of mine (baptist pastor's wife) has a mother who thinks her daughter is going to hell because she wears pants. i know no one here has said that if a man has long hair or a woman has short hair they will go to hell. still, it's the same type of thing. do i look good on the outside? am i following the letter of the law? it's easier for me to follow the letter of the law than to give all my being to Christ. it's easier for me to follow rules than to listen to the Holy Spirit. it's easier for me to follow the "don'ts" in the Bible than it is the "do's" the Bible contains. that way, i can see my behavior and think i am good. i can see that i am following God's commands and i can pat myself on the back. my heart can contain anything it wants, but my actions are aligned with God's Word. therefore i am good and obedient and deserve not only my pat on the back, but also God patting me on the back.

but what is truth? truth is that paul said it is a shame for men to have long hair. truth is also that Jesus said one should cut off their hand if it sins. to follow the letter of the law, can you do one without the other? why pick the short hair one to follow and not the plucking out of the eye? because of context maybe, and what Jesus really meant when He said that? why do it with one and not the other?

just some thoughts.

Jesus' comments were true. If someone cannot stop sinning without plucking out their eyes, they would be better to do so than wind up in hell. He didn't tell them to cut them out. He was just making a point about how bad hell is. The same thing applies to cutting off of one's hand. It would be better than going to hell.

[Guest Butero]

NEBULA I disagree.

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

BUTERO Correct. What Paul did say was, "Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head." What does he mean by covered? He means having long hair. How do I know that? Because if you move down to verses 14 and 15 it says, "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. The long hair is the covering, so he is saying exactly what I said he is.

NEBULA 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"?

BUTERO I have already answered that Nebula, in the post where I went through the entire passage section by section. He says "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, let her be covered." He is making the point that a woman having short hair is a bad as if she is bald. If it is a shame for her to be bald, then she should be covered. He is using an extreme example to make his point.

NEBULA 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.

BUTERO He is making a statement. He is asking if it is beautiful for a woman to pray unto God having short hair, saying it is not. He then says it is a shame for a man to have long hair.