Basic Standards

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

I understood the context perfectly. What you did was, because those two brothers have a different opinion than you regarding standards, you accused them of not upholding the doctrines of Christ and His apostles. You therefore just flamed them as less of believers than yourself because you don't think they are following the Scriptures properly because they don't see eye to eye with you about outward appearances.

And then you challenged them, insinuating they might believe they can divorce a woman for any reason in contradistinction to what Jesus taught.

It's the old, "have you stopped beating your wife?" trick question. You can't say "yes" because then you admit to beating your wife. You can't say "no" because then it looks like you are continuing to beat your wife. All you can do is try and say "I don't beat my wife". It automatically forces a defensive posture about something the person would otherwise have no reason to be defensive about.

It's a low tactic. And a logical fallacy, along with ad hominem and non-sequitor.

I, the author of the text, said that it is not what I meant. You pretend to know everything I thought. What I clarified is what I meant. I don't believe they will or approve divorcing their wife for random reasons. You haven't seen me saying that anywhere else. I am not accusing them either of nothing. I was confronting them with the inevitable consequences of their reasoning regarding the general statement that if it isn't the Law of Moses, it is not a sin.

It is very silly that you are arguing with me about the meaning of what I said; and after me clarifying it, you insist that what I meant to say it is not what I meant to say.

[Bro Flame]

All the revivalist movements that have swept the land have reformed themselves to a fundamentalist-holiness type of lifestyle. They recommitted themselves to God and laid aside the things of this world.

As I'm sure many of you are well aware, the early Methodists, John Wesley in particular, were very conservative in their attire and mingling with the world. Wesley himself was very strict on the attire aspect of the believer. There was somewhere that I read where Wesley said that he longed for the day that a Methodist congregation visually mirrored a Quaker congregation; that simple and modest dress. Wesley was very big on mixed patterns and mixed fabrics as I understand it.

There are still Methodists today that adhere to a strictness of dress and separation. Those I've met and know of self-identify as Wesleyan Methodists or Independent Methodists.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by coksiw

Context matters:

There is no "I'm going to cut it but let it grow" here. And I'm going to repeat that Paul wrote this, a Jew, and at least Jewish women at that time didn't cut their hair, at all.

Jewish women did cut their hair. If they had taken a Nazarite vow. At least that’s what I understand from the passage below. It doesn’t appear to draw a distinction of the genders.

Numbers 6

[1] And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
[2] Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When either man or woman shall separate themselves to vow a vow of a Nazarite, to separate themselves unto the LORD:

[18] And the Nazarite shall shave the head of his separation at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and shall take the hair of the head of his separation, and put it in the fire which is under the sacrifice of the peace offerings.

Brother? Read chapter six of Numbers and tell me what it meaneth.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Bro Flame

All the revivalist movements that have swept the land have reformed themselves to a fundamentalist-holiness type of lifestyle. They recommitted themselves to God and laid aside the things of this world.

As I'm sure many of you are well aware, the early Methodists, John Wesley in particular, were very conservative in their attire and mingling with the world. Wesley himself was very strict on the attire aspect of the believer. There was somewhere that I read where Wesley said that he longed for the day that a Methodist congregation visually mirrored a Quaker congregation; that simple and modest dress. Wesley was very big on mixed patterns and mixed fabrics as I understand it.

There are still Methodists today that adhere to a strictness of dress and separation. Those I've met and know of self-identify as Wesleyan Methodists or Independent Methodists.

Yes and the Muslims. Don’t leave out the Muslims.

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

But of course, it does. So does the meaning of words.




The Spanish of the Reina-Valera 1960 is substantially no different in meaning than the average English version, KJV or otherwise, and so, doesn't give a special meaning apart from, or that cannot be discerned from, an English translation.

So, why you appealed to the RV1960 as a prooftext is beyond me.

Simply, in English it says "long hair", and in Spanish "let their hair grow". There is a difference.

Furthermore, while "cortarse el cabello o raparse" is juxtaposed with " dejarse crecer el cabello", it does not mean they are oppositive phrases. Remember, context matters. And the context of the verse in question is this:

If a woman will not cover her hair with a veil, particularly when she prays or prophesies, not only does she dishonor her head, which is to say, her husband, the dishonor is so great, and the indecency of not veiling herself so complete, she may as well debase her natural beauty by cutting her hair off (not just trimming a bit here and there, but actually whacking off the locks, according to the Greek).

But if and since doing so would make her unattractive or ugly (particularly to her husband, if no one else), and so, would shame or embarrass her, that is, to have it cut off or shaved to the skin (from whence grows the hair), she should cover her hair with a veil and bring an end to her and her husband's dishonor.

So, again, the issue isn't about completely uncut hair. It's about the dishonor that is created when a woman prays or prophesies while not veiled in a church meeting. The dishonor to her head is equivalent to the dishonor she would feel if her hair was chopped off or shaved.

So, of all the Apostolic women who pray and prophesy whilst uncovered by a veil, Paul actually instructs them to have their hair cut off as a way to incur against them the dishonor they bring upon their head/husband.

So, let the hair grow long, it is a glory to a woman, that is, it beautifies her, but cover it up as something only the husband is supposed to see.

Here is another interpretation: here are two different topics in the passage. The main topic is "Wives should cover their head as a sign of being under authority, and if she doesn't want to she better removes the object of contention: the hair, by shaving it off or cutting it short.". Then, by verse 13 Paul ends it with "don't you get it?" kind of question, and ahead of the possible reader thought of "well, she can just cut it as you suggested", Paul contradicts his own recommendation of "if you don't want to cover it, then cut it" indicating that "it is a dishonor for wives to cut it off". His contradiction indicates that the original recommendation of cutting of or shaving it was a rhetorical device.

A women, or a man for that matter, can have hair cascading down past the hips, to the thighs or beyond, and cut away some split ends, and not a soul is going to think 3, 4, or even 5 feet of hair is somehow short, or that the person so crowned is not letting their hair grow (Look at the video below for proof. The woman's hair is over 4 feet long and she mentions early in the clip that she just had it trimmed. Her hair is longer than many Apostolic women with completely uncut hair).

That's why I said "generally". I use words in my statements with intention. Can you imagine if women were the ones getting generally speaking bald as they age?

And as far as the source quote from the Jewish Encyclopedia:

1.) Do you have any newer scholarship?

The text is from 1906.

2.) Do you have any other sources that corroborate the point?

One source alone by itself does not lend itself to credible fact collection. Certainly not enough to hang so much weight.

3.) Have you read the materials lists in the Bibliography?

Because you have no way of knowing where those men got their idea about uncut hair from. They certainly don't give any specific reference. Perhaps it is their own invention or misapplication of something contained in one of the sources found in the Bibliography.

Well, that encyclopedia has some good reputation. I'm surprised you doubt his credibility just because it goes against your expectations.

4.) Did you go and read the Scripture references in Jeremiah and Deuteronomy?

Because neither one of those verses are prooftexts that women never cut their hair. The verse in Jeremiah isn't talking about women but about the "sons of Judah" (See verse 30). The verse in Deuteronomy is not about abasement or mourning, but about hygiene, as the captured women were not just to be shaved, but also trim their nails. This was to remove possible contaminants from her body before she was brought into the home. Additionally, this verse isn't even about Hebrew/Israeli women, but about heathen women. So, as a custom, it's not something these women would ordinarily do, but was to be enforced upon them by the law of God.

The next verse in Deut is talking about mourning. The hygiene idea you are putting there, may, or may not be, but it is definitely not the indication of the text. Cutting your hair as a sign of mourning is not something unique to that verse, Jer 7:29 is another indication of hair being cut as result of mourning.

So speaking about Jer 7:29, the next verse you say it says "sons". Context matter. KJV, and the NKJV translates it as "children". But let's look at what it says in the two following verses. It is talking about Israel doing wrong things. Do you really think God was being selective about gender when denouncing what they were doing or was He referring to the entire house of Israel? Was the judgment only for the males?

But it is what Paul meant when he referred to nature, and the beginning of creation. Nature is inherent to the species. And it is inherent that men and women can both have long, uncut hair. The longest hair on record in the history of the human race was upon a man named Tran Van Hay. So something other than the biological nature is meant.

The question is one of comeliness. Something about nature is supposed to teach us that it is not comely or attractive for a man to have long hair, but is comely or attractive if a woman does. The nature that Paul wrote of then is not mere biology of heads and follicles but is psychological, that is, what is a generally agreed upon, at least in the ancient world, principle, that men with long hair are less attractive, and women with long hair are more attractive.

And part of that reason has to do with Paul's use of the word περιβολαίου or peribolaiou in 1 Corinthians 11:15, translated as "covering" (although this is a different Greek word translating covering earlier in the chapter).

Dr. Troy Martin, in this article make a pretty good case that peribolaiou refers to a sexual organ in various Greek literature contemporary to Paul. And while one need not go so far as Dr. Martin on the matter, one can understand Paul's reason for ordaining head coverings for women: long hair is sexually attractive, a part of her body as much as her breasts, or hips, or buttocks, or other parts that men are normally excited and enticed by. As such, hair, along with those other parts, are to be covered. Especially long hair, because longer hair is more attractive on a woman than short hair is.

So, it's not just a simple sex distinction, it's also a combatitive against lust for another man's wife, and a Christian sister, no less.

You have good points, but I can still find weak arguments. I won't keep dragging this because there is very little we can support our arguments with. We agree on long, and we disagree on uncut vs trimmed.

Regarding "nature", I believe the reference to nature here, as usually the way Paul uses it, is the way we are created, and probably referring to the fact that men tend to lose hair and go bald as they mature, creating a distinction of sex, and/or also their gender role in society. Basically:

Men naturally go bald, and naturally are protectors (fighters) and providers (workers) so they need the hair also short.
Women naturally don't go bald, and naturally their beauty is their strength which includes their hair. They naturally are not the fighters or providers of the home.

So it is an honor for a men to have their hair short, as their nature indicates, and it is an honor for a women to let their hair grow, as their nature indicates. Again, it is a distinction of sex issue. But I think we kind of agree on this.

As I also said from the beginning, "nature" here doesn't only indicates pure hair biology but the way we were created, which includes our roles, our gender distinctions in society, etc... Paul uses the word "nature" also to talk about our natural tendency to commit sin, and also "nature" to teach against homosexuality.

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Jewish women did cut their hair. If they had taken a Nazarite vow. At least that’s what I understand from the passage below. It doesn’t appear to draw a distinction of the genders.

Numbers 6

[1] And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
[2] Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When either man or woman shall separate themselves to vow a vow of a Nazarite, to separate themselves unto the LORD:

[18] And the Nazarite shall shave the head of his separation at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and shall take the hair of the head of his separation, and put it in the fire which is under the sacrifice of the peace offerings.

Brother? Read chapter six of Numbers and tell me what it meaneth.

Very good reference. Man, I still don't see any incompatibility with "uncut" for women in that Chapter. Women can still follow the Nazarite instructions, and at the end shave her hair, and keep having uncut hair after the vow is over.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Yes and the Muslims. Don’t leave out the Muslims.

There are different Muslims. They generally believe women should be modest and not expose their flesh. But they aren't known for being anti jewelry/finery:



This next one is labelled "Tashkent Nightlife 2015":



Shopping in Baku, Azerbaijan:



Iranian women who are also soccer fans:



Most Muslim women dress a lot more modestly than the average degenerate western women, yes, but that seems to be more a function of their culture not being as pozzed as ours is.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Lemon

Women should wear clothing.

Men should wear clothing.

Breath mints for ALL!

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

So it wasn't sin under the law but after Christ came and through the apostles it became sin?


I think the million dollar question is were the apostles really prohibiting adornment or teaching a principle about focusing on the inner vs the outward.

This is the question.

[Truthseeker]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

This is the question.

What is your answer?