Going to see Stoneking tomorrow:

[Jeffrey]

TheLegalist: As I have said scholars are nice qoutes for insight but they really mean nothing.

Isn't insight "something?" How can they mean nothing? Your contributions are a less-educated version of scholarly input just the same. Should I also conclude your participation "means nothing?" I don't get that.

Absolute speculation and total assumption he is dealing with culture
...yeah 1 Cor 11:7 is all about culture instead of standing before God in his position of authority?

Paul draws on a transcendent principle to make his case for particulars (in many other arguments he makes as well). It's the particular that has cultural verbiage. Scholars may be divided over what the issue was in the Corinthian church (though I haven't read one outside of Hazelwood that even considers uncut hair), but more are united that this is a culturally sensitive situation that Paul approaches with principles concerning propriety. Paul is reinforcing something they are already doing, and in his true-to-form Hillel-like hermeneutic, he splashed around with different water colors here.

1Co 11:14 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him,
1Co 11:15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.

given... divine aspect by God who is the giver.

See Aquila's note on this. He brings it home.

He never references culture at all. He does not appeal to a issue at hand. He is not rebuking here but affirming positively traditions he already has laid down and expounding on them or reiterating them. The context actually shows he is praising them.

Are you looking for him to literally say "this is cultural and in 200 years it may not make sense!" ? Expounding on traditions he has already laid down? Where do you get that from? Maybe traditions already in the church at the time (which my pro-veil brothers and sisters insist).
.

Please show me any rebuke concerning this issue.

Well, let's see v2 starts off with "I praise you" and then we get into this propriety at worship. v17 starts off with "In the following directives, I have no praise for you." I'd call that rebuke. As manys scholars who studied this Greek here have stated, his tone turns much more snappy and stinging. Look at his rhetoric in v22 for another example! I'd throw in vv27-29 as specific examples of rebuke language as well.

Does Paul argue nature? Does Paul argue order of creation? Seems he doesn't need Mosaic LAW to argue his teaching. Thus this argument is faulty. Not saying "never ever cutting" is the issue" Allowing to grow long though is. Which does in part mean not to cut for a time.

That makes no sense at all, TL. If something is so clear cut in nature, there would be a lawful precedent. If Paul is pointing backward to a tradition, history would be replete with examples of this. This attitude toward hair is not in Jewish history, nor in Gentile history. The idea that any of the women even had their hair cut short is unthinkable at this time in Corinth. All women during this time period had long hair. Every statue, every bust, every artistic work discovered in the first century, none of them show women with short hair. I know some have offered that temple prostitutes had their heads shaven, but that evidence is even scanty. What is definitely known is that women at this time, both Jew and Gentile, wore head coverings, and that this was exclusive to women.

That is debatated. Seems Paul made many new rules by doing away with others which is to make a rule in itself. He also expounded on many things which is teaching and application of law. So he does make rules... LOL!

Care to give examples of Paul's exclusive rules? Paul was a Jew. If he taught something, it would have been part of his Jewish heritage.

To dive into a pericope making huge assumptions that this issue is about hair because of a couple references to hair, to then create an uncut hair doctrine that separates and divides churches and believers from other believers (not to mention HMH nonsense) is utter madness. This isn't just a "it could mean this" it's the crown jewel of a larger percentage of Oneness Pentecostals.

[Jeffrey]

TL, here is the thesis of the first part of 1 Corinthians 11:

4Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved.

The language here seems to really limit that whatever Paul is addressing, is something exclusively taking place when they gather together.

[mfblume]

1 Cor 11 begins with a note connecting the nature of Paul's words to the previous chapter 10 where Paul is dealing with not offending people. Follow me, Paul said, after explaining the issue of offence in chapter 10. Chapter 11 shows that CULTURE has a VEIL on the head to show submission, NOT HAIR. HAIR is only raised later as a WITNESS to what LOOKS right on a woman and not a man, since LONG HAIR is LIKE A VEIL, which is proved by Paul's reference to NATURE as a witness amongst the previous arguments before verse 14. If it was NATURAL HAIR as the entire point, then NATURE would not be appealed to as a support argument.

It is CULTURAL. What is divine is the order of creation and submission aspects, but COVERING is only symbolic of that and is CULTURAL.

People will simply not see what they do not want to see. I have been on both sides of the argument, and the hair side is in error in my sincere assessment.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

TL, here is the thesis of the first part of 1 Corinthians 11:

4Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved.

The language here seems to really limit that whatever Paul is addressing, is something exclusively taking place when they gather together.

Why do you think this limits the context to the place they gather together. Couldn't Paul be speaking about whereever a man or a woman prays? It could be in their closet or in the assembly.

[Mirth1981]

Originally Posted by mfblume

People will simply not see what they do not want to see. I have been on both sides of the argument, and the hair side is in error in my sincere assessment.

That is so true. And many people do not want to see the truth regarding certain things because that would mean that they've been wrong all along, and that's a very uncomfortable position to be in. Once you realize the hair issue is wrong, everything else starts unravelling, and you actually might have to do something about what you have learned. It's an uncomfortable place to be. Much easier to just believe what you've been taught and not rock the organizational boat.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Mirth1981

That is so true. And many people do not want to see the truth regarding certain things because that would mean that they've been wrong all along, and that's a very uncomfortable position to be in. Once you realize the hair issue is wrong, everything else starts unravelling, and you actually might have to do something about what you have learned. It's an uncomfortable place to be. Much easier to just believe what you've been taught and not rock the organizational boat.

I have recently realized how many people attach their identities to an organization or its specific teachings. And when that teaching is challenged, they feel they are being challenged personally since they find their security and identity in proposing those teachings. That makes folks fight for their identity, so to speak. And this means they are not so angry over you challenging their doctrine, but over you challenging the means they use for finding identity in the world and security. And that causes them to feel you have personally attacked them and they fight.

Our identity is in Christ! Who cares what impresses people? We need to impress God. When we find our identity in anything other than Christ, we are actually seeking to impress people. And when that influence is challenged, we become angry since we unconsciously think PEOPLE will not be impressed with us any more.

This usually is the case with people who have LONG ARGUED a certain teaching, and cannot admit error in it, so will fight for it regardless of what evidence proves it to be error. This is rooted in seeking to impress people. Impressing God removes all that concern and does not lift us up to a place of pride that makes us fight for reputation. If they had never argued it so hard, they would never fight so much. They're smart and right on the money in so many areas, but anything that crosses their teaching in other areas is blindly argued against without that same intellectualism.

This is of course not the case for people who may be in error, but do not seek to impress people but God. Such people actually recognize a good argument without bias, and are able to admit error and change. LORD, help me be more and more like that.

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by Mirth1981

That is so true. And many people do not want to see the truth regarding certain things because that would mean that they've been wrong all along, and that's a very uncomfortable position to be in. Once you realize the hair issue is wrong, everything else starts unravelling, and you actually might have to do something about what you have learned. It's an uncomfortable place to be. Much easier to just believe what you've been taught and not rock the organizational boat.

Couldn't have said it better myself, this is so true, on so many levels!!

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Why do you think this limits the context to the place they gather together. Couldn't Paul be speaking about whereever a man or a woman prays? It could be in their closet or in the assembly.

An Epistle is usually dealing with a particular issue, either asked about in letter to the Apostle, or something the Apostle has learned from those who have given him a report and/or vented their own concerns.

Typically, this "praying and prophesying" would be when they gathered together (see 1 Corinthians 14 for more on that), rather at the central meeting places like the homes of the wealthy, or in their own home. Even if Paul intended that this would include praying at the grocery store, or at one's home, the idea that he is building this on "when you pray" makes it more conditional.

Much of the second-half of 1 Corinthians deals with issues of when they gather together specifically. That Paul would make an exception where there doesn't seem to be one here, would be odd.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by Mirth1981

That is so true. And many people do not want to see the truth regarding certain things because that would mean that they've been wrong all along, and that's a very uncomfortable position to be in. Once you realize the hair issue is wrong, everything else starts unravelling, and you actually might have to do something about what you have learned. It's an uncomfortable place to be. Much easier to just believe what you've been taught and not rock the organizational boat.

Indeed, it's truly a "slippery slope!"

[TheLegalist]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Isn't insight "something?" How can they mean nothing? Your contributions are a less-educated version of scholarly input just the same. Should I also conclude your participation "means nothing?" I don't get that.

In the scheme of all things. Yes what I say means nothing it is the Word that matters.

Paul draws on a transcendent principle to make his case for particulars (in many other arguments he makes as well). It's the particular that has cultural verbiage. Scholars may be divided over what the issue was in the Corinthian church (though I haven't read one outside of Hazelwood that even considers uncut hair), but more are united that this is a culturally sensitive situation that Paul approaches with principles concerning propriety. Paul is reinforcing something they are already doing, and in his true-to-form Hillel-like hermeneutic, he splashed around with different water colors here.

yeah what he taught to the gentiles.

Are you looking for him to literally say "this is cultural and in 200 years it may not make sense!" ? Expounding on traditions he has already laid down? Where do you get that from? Maybe traditions already in the church at the time (which my pro-veil brothers and sisters insist).

I praise you1 because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions just as I passed them on to you.
1Co 11:3 But I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman,2 and God is the head of Christ.

Well, let's see v2 starts off with "I praise you" and then we get into this propriety at worship. v17 starts off with "In the following directives, I have no praise for you." I'd call that rebuke. As manys scholars who studied this Greek here have stated, his tone turns much more snappy and stinging. Look at his rhetoric in v22 for another example! I'd throw in vv27-29 as specific examples of rebuke language as well.

read 1st verse praising and informing by continuation of the previous traditions....

BUT in the following

INSTRUCTION I DO NOT COMMEND YOU!

Which shows exaclty the opposite of what he was doing and is now NOT doing so now. Which shows change in attitude and direction from the previous.


1Co 11:17 But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. ESV

That makes no sense at all, TL. If something is so clear cut in nature, there would be a lawful precedent. If Paul is pointing backward to a tradition, history would be replete with examples of this. This attitude toward hair is not in Jewish history, nor in Gentile history. The idea that any of the women even had their hair cut short is unthinkable at this time in Corinth. All women during this time period had long hair. Every statue, every bust, every artistic work discovered in the first century, none of them show women with short hair. I know some have offered that temple prostitutes had their heads shaven, but that evidence is even scanty. What is definitely known is that women at this time, both Jew and Gentile, wore head coverings, and that this was exclusive to women.

women having long hair is all throughout history. I am not a uncut supporter.

Who said I was against head coverings? I am a proponent LOL! I believe in long hair and head coverings.

Care to give examples of Paul's exclusive rules? Paul was a Jew. If he taught something, it would have been part of his Jewish heritage.

You don't see the point I was making. Many things Paul taught was new in part. His arguments in this chapter are not directly taught anywhere.

To dive into a pericope making huge assumptions that this issue is about hair because of a couple references to hair, to then create an uncut hair doctrine that separates and divides churches and believers from other believers (not to mention HMH nonsense) is utter madness. This isn't just a "it could mean this" it's the crown jewel of a larger percentage of Oneness Pentecostals.

Not my problem as I am not a uncut forever and all time completely proponent.