how about y opinion about man with long hair?

[Guest man]

so the point of this discussion would be.....?

There are only two reasons I care about this debate.

1) I grew up trained to be legalistic. The Lord had to embarrass the daylights out of me as a means of beginning to break that. I now can see legalism for what it is, and I can see why it is destructive. So, I am chipping away at legalism.

I don't see Butero as being legalistic. He's trying explain why "he" believes what he believes. Why can't people just accept that?

2) I have a heart for the Native Americans. Listening to Native Americans who are ministers of the Gospel, they will tell you how much disgrace and bondage was brought to their people on account of this issue.

Are the indians still in bondage on account of this issue?

[Guest Butero]

I believe I am much more open to the possibility of being wrong than you are.

we are all a work in progress.

i still think you protest too much. i have changed a lot of my views, too. but the thought of listing them here never occured to me. why do you suppose you feel the need to do so?

Because people have made a lot of false accusations against me in various threads. On the other hand, I am not accusing you of being dishonest when you say you have changed your view on differen't things over the years. If you say that is the case, I have no reason to doubt you.

That "I think you protest too much" comment is a bunch of nonsense. Imagine this. You have someone accused of stealing and facing prison time. If the guy gets on the stand and states he is innocent and then goes on in great detail trying to convince everyone he is innocent, does that mean he must be guilty for protesting too much? If on the other hand, the guy just sits there and refuses to testify, does that mean he must be innocent because he offers no defense? It doesn't work that way. I just get tired of being falsely accused. I would imagine most people would get tired of it over time?

[Guest shiloh357]

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?

Historians rely on the written record, not only of a particular society, but of other societies that it intersected with. For example, in ancient Egypt, they wrote down the victories of their Pharoahs in battle, but when it came to their defeats, historians have to rely on the records of Egypts enemies and vice versa.

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?

Those are questions you would have to ask the historians themselves. The problem here is not that you are not actually interested in objective facts. I don't think there is any evidence I could provide that you would accept, because your problem is that you are more interested in a selective approach to history. If history doesn't fit what you are willing to believe, then it is history that has the problem.

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?

That is not how it works. If you made the claim that the gnostics believe "xyz" and I challenge your claim, what would you do??? You would provide the gnostic text that says, "xyz." So then I should be satisfied that your claim is true. But what if I challenge your book? What if I say, "how do you know" that book is really a collection of gnostic writings??? Can you prove it is an actual gnostic text??" What would be your response??? How would you go about demonstrating that it is genuine?? No matter what evidence you provide to support your claim, and no amount of evidence you provide to support the evidence that supports the evidence that supports your claim, I could endlessly call it into question. When would it end?

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.

Yes, I have provided evidence. If you can demonstrate that I have made a false statement of fact, then it would not be hard for you to demonstrate such. I could produce 100 historians, and you would still brush them aside. I am not going to waste my evening searching high and low only to have you dismiss what I present.

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.

No we couldn't. You don't understand how theology works.

I could claim that Romans chapter one doesn't deal with all homosexuals, but that it only applied to a certain group of Romans.[/quo I could claim that Jesus' teachings on divorce only applied to the audience he was talking to.

No, you couldn't. Divorce and marital issues are dealt in a number of places in Scripture as is homosexuality, so it is not the same as this hair situation Paul is outlining.

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.

No, because that is not what I said. I said that not every piece of information in each epistle is doctrinal in nature, such as Paul's advice to Timothy to take a little wine for his stomach. There is doctrinal matter in every epistle, but there is also personal advice that is specific to that congregation's needs and life issues/struggles. While that personal information is not directly applicable, it is relevant to us in terms of spiritual lessons the Holy Spirit can minister to modern Christians.

One unique quality of Paul's ministry is that he always emphathizes with his audience. He does not debate Torah/Talmud with the Greeks and does not quote from Greek philosophers when dealing with the Jews. Paul, in EACH of his epsitles is mindful of his audience. The advice he gives to the congregation at Phillipi is different than what he gives to those at Colosse or Rome or whatever.

Each congregation had its own struggles, questions, and cultural issues that required Paul's attention. Paul's epistles are tailored to each group to address a different set of needs.

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?

Paul is making a general statement about Scripture. All of Scripture is good for those things, but that does not mean that every single verse meets with each element in that description.

Doctrine is defined as those biblical teachings that form the foundation of practical Christian living. There are historical, geographical, biographical, genealogical data, none of which is doctrinal in nature. They tell you who said what, where and when and who was born to whom and so forth. NONE of that is doctrinal.

Doctrine pertains to issues like the nature and essence of God, the deity of Jesus, redemption, justification, sin, etc. Those are doctrinal issues. Hair length does not come up with the proper understanding of what constitutes doctrine.

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 is not that you don't know my heart. The problem is with your rather shallow understanding of how biblical doctrine is understood and applied.

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.

Face value is a wooden approach to Scripture that makes the Bible servant to the reader. If I were to take the Bible at face value, I would arrive at some rather strange conclusions. Jesus said that He was the door/gate. Does that mean that Jesus is a piece of wood with hinges??? A face-value approach would say, yes. Jesus said if your right hand offends you, cut it off. A face value approach would indicate that we are to cut off our hands and engage in self-mutilation.

I take a literal approach that allows me to see the object the author has in view. It keeps me from trying mold the Bible around what I want to believe and keeps me from making unwarranted judgments about the text.

[Guest man]

I just get tired of being falsely accused. I would imagine most people would get tired of it over time?

Yes, it does get old.

My advice to you is to just let this go. It's not worth the effort.

[BlindSeeker]

If I were to accept what you just said, then I would have to come to the conclusion that churches that require women to wear head coverings are right.

Well . . . actually . . . if you just left out the word "require." But unfortunately you prejudiced the sentence with legalism.

How about just -

If I were to accept what you just said, then I would have to come to the conclusion that churches where women to wear head coverings are right.

Could it be there is that option too?

[Guest Butero]

BUTERO For the sake of time and space, I am going to deal with the subject of historians without the back and forth. You have provided no evidence that any historians hold the views you do. You haven't given any names or comments. Most books have a list that tells where the author came up with the facts they claim are true. If this was a trial, you haven't provided any evidence. The only evidence presented here was by those of us that posted scripture. If you want to make a case for historical evidence, you need to provide the evidence so we can look into the historian and his sources.

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.

SHILOH357 No, you couldn't. Divorce and marital issues are dealt in a number of places in Scripture as is homosexuality, so it is not the same as this hair situation Paul is outlining.

BUTERO The number of places they come up are irrelevant to the audiences. I could always say it doesn't apply today because of any number of reasons. I could say they were before the cross so they don't apply and say only Paul's teachings apply. I could then say his don't apply either because they were only to the Corinthian church or the Romans.

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.

SHILOH No, because that is not what I said. I said that not every piece of information in each epistle is doctrinal in nature, such as Paul's advice to Timothy to take a little wine for his stomach. There is doctrinal matter in every epistle, but there is also personal advice that is specific to that congregation's needs and life issues/struggles. While that personal information is not directly applicable, it is relevant to us in terms of spiritual lessons the Holy Spirit can minister to modern Christians.

BUTERO I can build a doctrine around that. I can use that verse to support God is ok with medicine. Some people hold to the idea that seeking medical attention shows lack of faith.

SHILOH One unique quality of Paul's ministry is that he always emphathizes with his audience. He does not debate Torah/Talmud with the Greeks and does not quote from Greek philosophers when dealing with the Jews. Paul, in EACH of his epsitles is mindful of his audience. The advice he gives to the congregation at Phillipi is different than what he gives to those at Colosse or Rome or whatever.

Each congregation had its own struggles, questions, and cultural issues that required Paul's attention. Paul's epistles are tailored to each group to address a different set of needs.

BUTERO I am sure that is true, but unless you are someone that doesn't believe these letters apply to anyone except those churches, they are still the Word of God and still apply to us.

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?

SHILOH Paul is making a general statement about Scripture. All of Scripture is good for those things, but that does not mean that every single verse meets with each element in that description.

Doctrine is defined as those biblical teachings that form the foundation of practical Christian living. There are historical, geographical, biographical, genealogical data, none of which is doctrinal in nature. They tell you who said what, where and when and who was born to whom and so forth. NONE of that is doctrinal.

Doctrine pertains to issues like the nature and essence of God, the deity of Jesus, redemption, justification, sin, etc. Those are doctrinal issues. Hair length does not come up with the proper understanding of what constitutes doctrine.

BUTERO Of course hair length is doctrine. It is telling me something I can do to honor or dishonor Christ.

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.

SHILOH It is not that you don't know my heart. The problem is with your rather shallow understanding of how biblical doctrine is understood and applied.

BUTERO What you call shallow, I call rightly dividing. What you call understanding how doctrine is understood, I call twisting scripture to make them say what you want them to say.

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.

SHILOHFace value is a wooden approach to Scripture that makes the Bible servant to the reader. If I were to take the Bible at face value, I would arrive at some rather strange conclusions. Jesus said that He was the door/gate. Does that mean that Jesus is a piece of wood with hinges??? A face-value approach would say, yes. Jesus said if your right hand offends you, cut it off. A face value approach would indicate that we are to cut off our hands and engage in self-mutilation.

I take a literal approach that allows me to see the object the author has in view. It keeps me from trying mold the Bible around what I want to believe and keeps me from making unwarranted judgments about the text.

BUTERO Jesus was meaning that if your right hand is doing something that will keep you out of heaven, you would be better to cut it off. Obviously, we would be better off to deal with the underlying sin and keep our hand, but if there is no other option, it is best to cut it off.

[Guest Butero]

If I were to accept what you just said, then I would have to come to the conclusion that churches that require women to wear head coverings are right.

Well . . . actually . . . if you just left out the word "require." But unfortunately you prejudiced the sentence with legalism.

How about just -

If I were to accept what you just said, then I would have to come to the conclusion that churches where women to wear head coverings are right.

Could it be there is that option too?

Yes Blindseeker. I am satisfied with that modification.

[Guest Butero]

I just get tired of being falsely accused. I would imagine most people would get tired of it over time?

Yes, it does get old.

My advice to you is to just let this go. It's not worth the effort.

You are probably right Man. It started out with me giving a simple answer to the question posed. All I said was that I thought it was a shame for a man to have long hair, and that simple, and very Biblical statement, was immediately challenged. I just cannot understand how something that is spelled out so plain can be twisted like this? I can understand how someone might wonder about the angels or some of the less obvious things in the passage, but not the part about long and short hair?

I am more than willing to try to discuss this or any other topic with someone who has an open mind, but I am afraid that is not possible in this thread. Thanks Man. You were sticking your neck out in defending me in this thread.

[Guest man]

Thanks Man. You were sticking your neck out in defending me in this thread.

Brothers

[Guest Butero]

You are probably right Man. It started out with me giving a simple answer to the question posed. All I said was that I thought it was a shame for a man to have long hair, and that simple, and very Biblical statement, was immediately challenged. I just cannot understand how something that is spelled out so plain can be twisted like this? I can understand how someone might wonder about the angels or some of the less obvious things in the passage, but not the part about long and short hair?

I am more than willing to try to discuss this or any other topic with someone who has an open mind, but I am afraid that is not possible in this thread. Thanks Man. You were sticking your neck out in defending me in this thread.

since no one can agree on what long hair is, how can you say that it is spelled out so plainly?

What is long and what is short is not what it plain. What is plain is that long hair on a guy is a shame and dishonors Christ and short hair on a woman dishonors her head. That much is spelled out. If someone is really concerned about what is long and what is short, then men should have their hair cut like the guy in your picture and women should never cut their hair. Simple enough. If on the other hand, people realize that you can follow this scripture without going to such extremes, and quit the nonsense of pretending like this passage is impossible to follow, let them do so.