how about y opinion about man with long hair?

[Guest Butero]

Wow this thread grew alot since the last time I've been on..... Is salvation based on hair length is what I'm now asking? Someone showed what it was based on and it wasn't hair length......

Nobody that I know of in this thread ever claimed salvation was based on hair length. If you want to dispute that, show me the post where they did?

[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.

SHILOH But you have already made it clear that historians don't really have any credibility. You would not take their word for it, and you have already indicated that you see historical evidence as non-evidence. Even if I provide names and such, that does not in and of itself demonstrate that their statements are true. That is what it comes down to. The issue is the veracity of the claims. If I have made a false statement of fact, it would be easy to show that my statements are wrong by providing the evidence to demonstrate such. I don't have to prove anything. You are the challenger. The burden of proof lies with you, not me. If you cannot demonstrate that I have made any false historical claims or that historians don't support my view, then my comments stand as true by default. My knowledge comes from a very long history and many years of study from multiple sources. I do not have the time to search high and low only to have my efforts summarily dismissed. Frankly, I don't trust you enough to be fair to any sources I might present. From your previous statements, I have every reason to believe that any evidence I present will simply be brushed aside as unimportant or meaningless.

BUTERO You are asking me to prove that historians you haven't named are not accurate. That is totally absurd. No Shiloh, the burden of proof is on you because you haven't provided one shred of evidence, historical or otherwise to back up you claims. I don't even know if any historians even said what you claim they said, and neither does anyone else. Until you provide the names of these historians along with their evidence, I don't have any reason to believe they exist.

SHILOH Furthermore, there is nothing in 1 Corinthians 11 that teaches that a man having long hair dihonors Christ. That is something YOU have added to the text. That further disqualifies your claims.

BUTERO 1 Corinthians 11:4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. When it speaks of "having his head covered," it means by having long hair. If you want to claim it is a hat, like the one some Jewish people wear when they pray, fine. Under that definition, they would be dishonoring Christ. It is speaking of long hair, but have it your way.

SHILOH You are the one adding to the Scripture to make it say what you want, not me. You cannot even accurately relate what the text says without adding to it, so you have nothing to day about "rightly-dividing" anything.

BUTERO To come up with your interpretation, you have to seek the assistance of phantom historians, whose names you have yet to provide. I haven't added one thing to scripture. I have shown that the covering is hair and that the passage says if a man has long hair, it is a shame, and if he prays or prophies having long hair (his head covered) he dishonors his head.

I would deal with the other things you said, but they are only going around in circles.

[Guest Butero]

You're joking.....................right?

There was nothing in that video pertaining to being in bondage because of the length of their hair.

I guess I must have misunderstood your question. When you said, "Are the indians still in bondage on account of this issue?" I thought you meant do they still feel bound being forced to have short hair.

In that video, he did mention the cutting of the hair as a part of the rules and regs that bound him. Obviously, he isn't bound anymore.

It would be hard for me to find something on line that repeats what I heard from the First Nations people, though, about what hair length means to them, and how the boys cried when the people at the boarding school cut their hair off.

In this video he mentions the bondage the people are still under. He didn't mention the hair cut in this one, but in descriptions by him and others, it is a part of the dehumanization they suffered. (And please don't call them "Indians" - that isn't really who they are.)

You can reject this if you please, but you should really fellowship with Native American Christians before making a final verdict.

If I were to base any verdict on the customs of native Americans, I would be wrong to do so. The Word of God trumps man made customs.

[Guest Butero]

Blindseeker, in post 272, you gave a very lengthy explaination of what you say you believe on the topic of hair length. I am planning on going back to read it more thoroughly, but I would like to ask you something. Did you write all of that, or did it come from a web-site or a book?

[Guest Butero]

Blindseeker:

However, when we, the creatures of our glorious Creator gather together for prayer or worship or the reading and speaking of God

[Guest Butero]

i love the way how some here are using excuses to justify reasons for men to have long hair.

whether it's historical, Paul's "perception", or not meant for us.....; one cannot avoid one scripture:

1 cor 11:14 "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?"

-close the thread

then do tell....WHAT IS LONG HAIR?

i think you want to aim your frustration and questions at the bible.

you must have long hair?

All I can do is present what scripture says. There isn't a hair police going around with a ruler.

Just because you question the bible on not being specific of length does not give it a pass to override scripture.

"it never says a length therfeore it does not matter."

Actually length does matter. If the issue is about pleasing and obeying the Lord, it follows that we must know what limits God places on hair length.

The fact that God does not provide us with any such length requirements demonstrates that a different issue is in play. You simply want to take an inferior face-value approach to Scripture, but that makes the text servant to reader. It is up to the reader to determine for himself what constitutes "long hair" and that opens up others to condemnation if they don't meet someone else's opinion of what "long hair" means.

There is simply no doctrinal material that denotes what long hair means. That is why we must rely on the cultural and historical information to understand how they flavor Paul's instructions.

If people want to be certain, women could simply never cut their hair, and men could go around with a crew cut. It is possible to follow. The reason this isn't necessary is because people know within themselves what long and short is, and this is not a sin issue. The Bible calls it a shame. There is a difference.

[BlindSeeker]

I have looked very carefully at verse 3 and all the other verses from 1 through 16. Remember, that I went through all the verses already. This is speaking of authority, but when a man has short hair, it shows he is in submission to Christ and when a woman has long hair, it shows she is in submission to her husband and Christ.

That is not what it says.

When a man has short hair, it shows he has had a hair cut. When a woman has long hair it is evident that she has not cut her hair.

Nowhere in the passage is it saying what you are implying.

[Guest Butero]

i love the way how some here are using excuses to justify reasons for men to have long hair.

whether it's historical, Paul's "perception", or not meant for us.....; one cannot avoid one scripture:

1 cor 11:14 "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?"

-close the thread

Okaya, so let's have a definition from scripture of what long hair is. And, while we're at it, let's also address the question of why God would command those under a nazirite vow not to cut their hair during the time of their vow.

This really has no relevance since the keeping of a Nazarite vow was a practice done before the cross. It comes with a lot or ordinances that wouldn't apply today, like becoming unclean if you come into the presence of a dead body, and having to shave your head and start over. The passage in Corinthians is a New Testament practice, and that is obvious from the fact it states that a man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, and the same passage shows his head to be Christ.

[exrockstar]

i think you want to aim your frustration and questions at the bible.

you must have long hair?

All I can do is present what scripture says. There isn't a hair police going around with a ruler.

Just because you question the bible on not being specific of length does not give it a pass to override scripture.

"it never says a length therfeore it does not matter."

if you have any hair on your head at all, chances are it is longer than mine.

if you are going to talk about long hair, you need to be able to state what long hair is. otherwise it is a meaningless discussion.

again...your gripe is against the bible and Paul not being clear.

[chonnette]

Discerning the heart not the hair.

If we are led by the Spirit and obediently discern others from a spiritual perspective, we as believers, humbly understand that long, short or no hair is unimportant. But, rather it's the condition of the heart for the Lord that matters.