An alternative take on head coverings

[The Revolting Man]

Is this sort of like, putting hedges around Laws? Extending the Sabbath Laws, not saying the Name of God, Catholics not wanting the layperson to read the Bible, things like that, just to be on the safe side?

I personally think there is a deeper spiritual meaning to all this hair/nonhair stuff.

I'm not sure what you mean, it seems like Ish's link was the one who might have been putting hedges around laws, implying that we could ignore portions of scripture because our knowledge has evolved past what God was able to communicate with us at the time.

It's very simple, either an all knowing and all powerful God wrote us a book and preserved it for us or a bunch of men wrote and exited it, some without any intention of doing so.

@Asformeandmyhouse said it best, I'm not going to waste my time with the Bible if it's just based off the things the Greeks and Romans knew. History has proven to me that they were morons. If they're the ultimate source of the Bible then I must continue my search for the meaning of life, the universe and everything. So long and thanks for all the fishy stories Paul and Moses.

God WOULD NOT have inspired Paul to give us an instruction based on completely false information that was nothing more than the speculation of some pretty egregiously polytheistic pagans. If He did then I'm going to join the pagans and worship Dionysus.

That's the big controversy here. Since the beginning seems to be a trend among some men to insert some arcane mysteries and hidden revelations and secret codes in to the faith. I don't know if they think it's too boring or they just want to be experts entrusted with special knowledge but it can be very destructive if it's not kept in perspective.

 

[Shibboleth]

Possibly related...

Does Women's Hair Signal Reproductive Potential? I haven't looked at the paper itself, but the abstract seems to indicate, yes.

 

[andrew]

Uh, oh. The plot thickens!

 

[steve]

Kinda guessing that a butch haircut on a female would go with zero reproductive desires......

 

[Nikud]

Polycystic ovary syndrome is the most common hormone disturbance for women with infertility that results in irregular periods. With this condition some women will experience unwanted hair growth on the face and body, patchy hair loss from the scalp (alopecia) and too much weight gain.

I concide that Long healthy hair is a sign of fertility, but not that head covering has any thing to do with what Dr. Michael Heiser said.

Yes, a famous evangelical scholar and he only draws from peer-reviewed articles. As a King james guy you should appreciate that this guy went through and mapped every single word from the Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek to each word/phrase of the entire King James bible making it possible for King James lovers to use software to immediately discover underlying Hebrew and Greek words according to the versions of texts used in the King James tradition. Quite a scholar indeed

Ok I've listen to it 3 times now. I still do not agree that it is a reference to genatalia. Just because someone is a Famous Evangalist Scholar does not always make them right. I love the writings of Charles Spurgeon he was a great Biblical Scholar, completely wrong when it came to polygamy. He was a Baptist Preacher and most Baptist I know will fight you to the Death if you say he was Charismatic (I have the scars to prove it). I've read his sermons over and over and I see a Charismatic Preacher who prophesied. How this relates to the topic at hand is this. Depending on our beleifs we're going to look at scripture like head covering from diffrent angles. We're going to see different messages in the language. So let's look at The science. The science behind what this scholar is saying is faulty. What does science have to do with it? Glad you asked.
Look at all the science that the bible gives us from the world being round to the star's being uncountable and so much more. More and more scientists (geologists) are accepting the Flood Narrative and creation Narative because its the only way explain the stratification of the earth sedimentary layers without having to create a chain of near impossible events to happen spontaneously and simultaneously. When G-d reveals science in the Bible it witnesses to HIS glory and Power. When Dr. Michael Heiser illuminates the verse about headcoverings using knowledge of Grecko-Roman culture and the "science" back in the day by Hippocrates it is not a good wittness because it is untrue.

 

[andrew]

What do you make of Shibboleth's post and the possibility that hair covering is still basically a modesty issue?

 

[Nikud]

What do I think about @Shibboleth 's post that hair covering is basically a modesty issue? I think first and foremost it is a traditional issue about modesty, in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 supported by the unveiling of a woman's hair was considered a humiliation and punishment Isaiah 3:17; Numbers 5:18 on the loosening of the hair of a woman suspected of adultery.
I also beleive it it a traditional issue about headship

1 Corinthians 11:2-16

"2 Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you. 3 But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and G-d is the head of Christ. 4 Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. 5 But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved. 6 For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head. 7 For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8 For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; 9 for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake. 10 Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from G-d. 13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, 15 but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering. 16 But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of G-d."

In the end one can look at it as an issue of tradition because the Church has no such practice.

I also think there's a spiritual issue here but honestly I haven't worked out enough scripture to support my idea but I'll post it if/when I can validate it with scripture.

 

[Shibboleth]

What do you make of Shibboleth's post and the possibility that hair covering is still basically a modesty issue?

What do I think about @Shibboleth's post that hair covering is basically a modesty issue?

I don't think I was making any specific claim about the issue, just adding more data.

 

[andrew]

Got that. That's why I didn't say "Shibboleth's argument".

 

[IshChayil]

Polycystic ovary syndrome is the most common hormone disturbance for women with infertility that results in irregular periods. With this condition some women will experience unwanted hair growth on the face and body, patchy hair loss from the scalp (alopecia) and too much weight gain.

I concide that Long healthy hair is a sign of fertility, but not that head covering has any thing to do with what Dr. Michael Heiser said.
Ok I've listen to it 3 times now. I still do not agree that it is a reference to genatalia. Just because someone is a Famous Evangalist Scholar does not always make them right

I think you misunderstood my purpose for bringing that up. I also am not an evangelical but I generally consider evangelicals to be "safe"; I only brought up his affiliation in reference to a challenge from someone else where there was some concern he may be some cook or something. I don't know any Messianic who would say "look the guy I'm quoting is Evangelical so he is therefore right" we'd get laughed out of the synagogue and I'm surprised I need to tell you that. ; they will however consider evangelical scholarship as it's generally "kosher".

...[stuff deleted]...The science behind what this scholar is saying is faulty. What does science have to do with it? Glad you asked.
Look at all the science that the bible gives us from the world being round to the star's being uncountable and so much more

You're making a leap that neither I, nor Heiser, nor the Greek scholar he's distilling make. Nobody is saying that the bible is putting forward Hippocrates' ideas here.
The discovery is that in Greek cultural context, educated types may have been familiar with the literature and doctors certainly would have been.
The article and podcasts illuminate the culture and provide a nice backdrop for seeing how Paul may have been relating to those Greeks.
Interestingly enough, in light of the paper @Shibboleth shared, the end result may have been right even (which was not even what I was angling at).

. More and more scientists (geologists) are accepting the Flood Narrative and creation Narative because its the only way explain the stratification of the earth sedimentary layers without having to create a chain of near impossible events to happen spontaneously and simultaneously. When G-d reveals science in the Bible it witnesses to HIS glory and Power.

The flood narrative isn't really a good example since many cultures contain a flood myth so it's not a cultural phenomenon unique to the Hebrew/Greeks/ etc.
This is digressing a bit but I'll engage you on this. AS someone who had to study a boatload of science, I think the bible is not a good source of scientific knowledge at all and I don't think it's intended to be. I think if G-d had included such information the ancients wouldn't have had a clue and it would have not touched them in any meaningful way and again, they are just as important as we are as recipients of the biblical text. We may consider starting a thread about "science in the bible" in the bible...usually folks just call anything incorrect scientifically "metaphor" . There's a lot to tackle there including things like the Hebrew word for "sky" which is something metallic pounded out by a hammer and stretched out.

***back on track***
If you accept the scholarship or reject it concerning the meaning of Greek words, the science of fecundity as it was in that culture in those days, or not, that's fine.
I personally enjoyed that podcast when I heard it some time back because it fits pieces together perfectly. I even shared the findings with a congregation and it was very well received (doesn't make it right I know). Many were blessed to have a deeper understanding of why the contradictions in scripture exist about long hair being a shame on a man in Paul's letters yet being a blessing on a man in the Torah (Nazarite vow). This position may or may not be right but for many of us it has great explanatory power and resolves conflicts within the text.

I also have yet to hear from anyone here why the apostle says it's a shame for a man to have long hair, which is in direct contradiction to the torah regarding Nazarites who were considered "extra holy" and ordered by G-d to have long hair when they took their vow. If you have a better explanation than the one Heiser is sharing I'm all ears to share that instead next time this comes up.
Furthermore, as a torah-keeper, I know you see the "to the Greek as a Greek and to the Jew as a Jew" to have nothing to do with Law-keeping, which means it only has culture left. So aren't we expected to try to understand Greek culture in sections of the bible where Greeks are the direct audience at least in the same manner that we try to understand 1st century Israelite culture when we interpret other scriptures?
That's what Heiser is doing. What aspect of Greek culture will you use to exegete this section?

 

[The Revolting Man]

I think you misunderstood my purpose for bringing that up. I also am not an evangelical but I generally consider evangelicals to be "safe"; I only brought up his affiliation in reference to a challenge from someone else where there was some concern he may be some cook or something. I don't know any Messianic who would say "look the guy I'm quoting is Evangelical so he is therefore right" we'd get laughed out of the synagogue and I'm surprised I need to tell you that. ; they will however consider evangelical scholarship as it's generally "kosher".


You're making a leap that neither I, nor Heiser, nor the Greek scholar he's distilling make. Nobody is saying that the bible is putting forward Hippocrates' ideas here.
The discovery is that in Greek cultural context, educated types may have been familiar with the literature and doctors certainly would have been.
The article and podcasts illuminate the culture and provide a nice backdrop for seeing how Paul may have been relating to those Greeks.
Interestingly enough, in light of the paper @Shibboleth shared, the end result may have been right even (which was not even what I was angling at).


The flood narrative isn't really a good example since many cultures contain a flood myth so it's not a cultural phenomenon unique to the Hebrew/Greeks/ etc.
This is digressing a bit but I'll engage you on this. AS someone who had to study a boatload of science, I think the bible is not a good source of scientific knowledge at all and I don't think it's intended to be. I think if G-d had included such information the ancients wouldn't have had a clue and it would have not touched them in any meaningful way and again, they are just as important as we are as recipients of the biblical text. We may consider starting a thread about "science in the bible" in the bible...usually folks just call anything incorrect scientifically "metaphor" . There's a lot to tackle there including things like the Hebrew word for "sky" which is something metallic pounded out by a hammer and stretched out.

***back on track***
If you accept the scholarship or reject it concerning the meaning of Greek words, the science of fecundity as it was in that culture in those days, or not, that's fine.
I personally enjoyed that podcast when I heard it some time back because it fits pieces together perfectly. I even shared the findings with a congregation and it was very well received (doesn't make it right I know). Many were blessed to have a deeper understanding of why the contradictions in scripture exist about long hair being a shame on a man in Paul's letters yet being a blessing on a man in the Torah (Nazarite vow). This position may or may not be right but for many of us it has great explanatory power and resolves conflicts within the text.

I also have yet to hear from anyone here why the apostle says it's a shame for a man to have long hair, which is in direct contradiction to the torah regarding Nazarites who were considered "extra holy" and ordered by G-d to have long hair when they took their vow. If you have a better explanation than the one Heiser is sharing I'm all ears to share that instead next time this comes up.
Furthermore, as a torah-keeper, I know you see the "to the Greek as a Greek and to the Jew as a Jew" to have nothing to do with Law-keeping, which means it only has culture left. So aren't we expected to try to understand Greek culture in sections of the bible where Greeks are the direct audience at least in the same manner that we try to understand 1st century Israelite culture when we interpret other scriptures?
That's what Heiser is doing. What aspect of Greek culture will you use to exegete this section?

We really need a dislike button. I think you're over simplifying the Nazarite thing Ish. The very fact that they took a vow to not cut their hair is strong proof that there was a strong incentive to cut their hair. I'm sure it needs plenty more study by Paul was not laying down a law about men's hair. He was using the subject as an example of the natural responses we have to such things and how they demonstrate that women should have an authority on their heads. That's the main point. Paul didn't say in this passage that "Men shall not have long hair, thus sayeth the Lord!" Therefore there is no contradiction with Samson.

 

[IshChayil]

We really need a dislike button. I think you're over simplifying the Nazarite thing Ish. The very fact that they took a vow to not cut their hair is strong proof that there was a strong incentive to cut their hair. I'm sure it needs plenty more study by Paul was not laying down a law about men's hair. He was using the subject as an example of the natural responses we have to such things and how they demonstrate that women should have an authority on their heads. That's the main point. Paul didn't say in this passage that "Men shall not have long hair, thus sayeth the Lord!" Therefore there is no contradiction with Samson.

Glad you got the "dislike button" disdain out of your system; I think we've all wanted one of those form time to time. I don't think it would contribute to the forum ethos in a positive way; it'd be a petty way to do a hit and run visa via group-think on someone where at least "like" doesn't need to be qualified "yeah I agree with that".

Paul absolutely does call out long hair on men as shameful in this section (context is king you can't just look at one line and not the surrounding text) and if you listened to the whole podcast Heiser goes in to that. In point of fact that was why the Greek understanding of hair's role in reproduction had such explanatory power in this section; it's beyond the hair covering and more on the issue of hair in general and resolves scriptural conflict while nicely tidying up the bit about lusty angels. You say Paul doesn't add thus sayeth the L-rd here; I invite you to chime in with your thoughts about that in the divinely inspired thread (your differentiation of levels of inspiration in scripture) or qualify how it's relevant here [if a contradiction in the bible isn't direct quote from the L-rd it's not a contradiction?]. I'm operating from an assumption that all scripture is inspired on some level, and therefore all the past scrutiny of Paul's regulations on deacons, elders, etc... so naturally if he writes something which on face value contradicts something in the Old Testament, we should desire to know why...how to resolve the contradiction.

I've studied the Nazarite vow in depth brother; it was unquestionably a method to obtain higher holiness and only consisted of 3 elements for the duration of the vow (not including sacrifices) and it's the very highest level of inspiration since we are told that G-d literally told Moses to instruct these things.

(sacrifices)
1: shave head then don't cut the hair for all the years of the vow
2: don't consume anything from the fruit of the vine
3: don't touch a dead person
(sacrifices)

In fact, I'll double down on my original statement and demonstrate that Paul Himself seems to have taken a Nazarite vow in the book of acts, and led others in taking the vow.
You have not demonstrated an alternative explanation to the contradiction in the text; I want to encourage everyone that we always be ready for an answer for the faith that is within us in this day and age more and more liberals are learning the text as we see a new age of activist atheists. I hope we'll be the guys cool and calm headed who handily defeat the atheist while those on the fence listen in... I'm totally open to better explanations how to resolve the contradictions and explain the "and because of the angels" warning.

 

[windblown]

The connection with male pattern baldness and testosterone could be something to consider.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Glad you got the "dislike button" disdain out of your system; I think we've all wanted one of those form time to time. I don't think it would contribute to the forum ethos in a positive way; it'd be a petty way to do a hit and run visa via group-think on someone where at least "like" doesn't need to be qualified "yeah I agree with that".

Paul absolutely does call out long hair on men as shameful in this section (context is king you can't just look at one line and not the surrounding text) and if you listened to the whole podcast Heiser goes in to that. In point of fact that was why the Greek understanding of hair's role in reproduction had such explanatory power in this section; it's beyond the hair covering and more on the issue of hair in general and resolves scriptural conflict while nicely tidying up the bit about lusty angels. You say Paul doesn't add thus sayeth the L-rd here; I invite you to chime in with your thoughts about that in the divinely inspired thread (your differentiation of levels of inspiration in scripture) or qualify how it's relevant here [if a contradiction in the bible isn't direct quote from the L-rd it's not a contradiction?]. I'm operating from an assumption that all scripture is inspired on some level, and therefore all the past scrutiny of Paul's regulations on deacons, elders, etc... so naturally if he writes something which on face value contradicts something in the Old Testament, we should desire to know why...how to resolve the contradiction.

I've studied the Nazarite vow in depth brother; it was unquestionably a method to obtain higher holiness and only consisted of 3 elements for the duration of the vow (not including sacrifices) and it's the very highest level of inspiration since we are told that G-d literally told Moses to instruct these things.

(sacrifices)
1: shave head then don't cut the hair for all the years of the vow
2: don't consume anything from the fruit of the vine
3: don't touch a dead person
(sacrifices)

In fact, I'll double down on my original statement and demonstrate that Paul Himself seems to have taken a Nazarite vow in the book of acts, and led others in taking the vow.
You have not demonstrated an alternative explanation to the contradiction in the text; I want to encourage everyone that we always be ready for an answer for the faith that is within us in this day and age more and more liberals are learning the text as we see a new age of activist atheists. I hope we'll be the guys cool and calm headed who handily defeat the atheist while those on the fence listen in... I'm totally open to better explanations how to resolve the contradictions and explain the "and because of the angels" warning.

There is no contradiction. There is no command for men to have short hair unless they're a priest, Ezekiel 44:20. Obviously those under a vow fell under a different category. But we know this, God instituted the Nazarite vow and God inspired Paul to write that having long hair is a shame to a man. There must be a reconciliation. I strongly suspect it's in the word shame. But no matter what, I know God's word doesn't contradict itself.

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

@ZecAustin ’s idea for a “dislike button” got me thinking. Maybe we could add a bunch of different ones. You know, to really clearify what we think of something. Here are a few button examples:

“That’s stupid!”

“REBUKE”

“HERETIC”

“I really like everything in this post except that one line that was really weird”

 

[IshChayil]

There is no contradiction. There is no command for men to have short hair unless they're a priest, Ezekiel 44:20. Obviously those under a vow fell under a different category. But we know this, God instituted the Nazarite vow and God inspired Paul to write that having long hair is a shame to a man. There must be a reconciliation. I strongly suspect it's in the word shame. But no matter what, I know God's word doesn't contradict itself.

As do we all here...

Remaining unreconciled is "long hair being part of extra-holiness" and "long hair being a shame"...still waiting for an alternate explanation. As it stands, only Heiser's answers all the points including the "and because of the angel's"... let us know if you come up with something...

 

[Nikud]

I don't know any Messianic who would say "look the guy I'm quoting is Evangelical so he is therefore right" we'd get laughed out of the synagogue and I'm surprised I need to tell you that. ; they will however consider evangelical scholarship as it's generally "kosher".

Furthermore, as a torah-keeper, I know you see the "to the Greek as a Greek and to the Jew as a Jew" to have nothing to do with Law-keeping, which means it only has culture left. So aren't we expected to try to understand Greek culture in sections of the bible where Greeks are the direct audience at least in the same manner that we try to understand 1st century Israelite culture when we interpret other scriptures?

I'm sorry if it's disappointing that I don't tote the party line an accept things. If I did I wouldn't be on this forum. I test all spirits. I listen to it 3 times gave it a chance and disagreed with the part of Greek culture that Dr. Heiser was trying to use to illuminate scripture. I think it's a weak argument and its not the first time i have heard it. Many Muslims try to use it when they are saying that the Bible is nothing but porn.

He illuminates the verse about headcoverings using knowledge of Grecko-Roman culture and what was considered "science" back in the day by Hippocrates and others..

When Dr. Michael Heiser illuminates the verse about headcoverings using knowledge of Grecko-Roman culture and the "science" back in the day by Hippocrates it is not a good wittness because it is untrue.

You're making a leap that neither I, nor Heiser, nor the Greek scholar he's distilling make. Nobody is saying that the bible is putting forward Hippocrates' ideas here.

I didn't say that. But it sure does sound like you were. I said that true science witnesses to scripture and illuminating scripture with faulty science doesn't. I find it odd that here when it is used against an agruement your trying to make science isn't a valid arguement but in some of our off forum discussions about atheist you agreed its our greatest weapon against them. Now that ive the finger waving for me being a bad Messianic and my reasoning ability being questioned by the leaping to conclusion statement has been let's talk about the Nazirite vow.

1. The person must abstain from wine and fermented drink;
2. The hair could not be cut, and the beard could not be shaved;
3. Touching a dead body was prohibited.

Numbers 6:1-2
Nazirite Vows
6 Again Adonai spoke to Moses saying, 2 “Speak to Bnei-Yisrael and say to them: Any man or woman who desires to vow a Nazirite vow to be separate for Adonai,

Sacrifices involves suffering. How would growing long hair be a sacrifice? By the social stigma, shame attatched. Do you think the ancient Jews would see a longhaired and unkept bearded man an immediately think Nazarite, bum or Gentile. Though once it was known they were a Nazrite then the ones who treated them poorly initially where condemned by there own actions, words, and thoughts. This wasn't much of a sacrifice for those who stayed within their home village where everyone knew them. There is also another issue at play. There are those who took the vow later in life for 40 days?? I may be wrong on the length but I know that when a person choose for themselves everthing I've read was it was temporary. Then there are those who are dedicated by there parents that are life long. There are instances in scripture,Samson for one, but no scriptural instruction for being dedicated at birth only for choosing. So being dedicated a Nazarite at birth was much like Chatholics baptizing Babies. It is this Practice that Paul may being refering too. Oh wait, as you pointed out earlier Jew to Jew, Greek to Greek, Hes talking to Greeks so it has to be something in Greek culture he's referencing and not trying to call the Long haired of a Nazarite shameful. Maybe the fact that in this era since the time of socrates it was a way for young greek men rebel and cause social discord by growing there hair long and put it in a "Spartan" Top Knott. Well at least in Athens.....which was the cultral hub of Greece. Theres an possible explaination for why long hair would be shameful to the Greeks that doesn't involve esoteric cultral knowledge revolving around genitalia.

 

[IshChayil]

I'm sorry if it's disappointing that I don't tote the party line an accept things. If I did I wouldn't be on this forum. I test all spirits.

I haven't seen 1 person here accept the Heiser explanation so ... not sure what party line you aren't toting, in point of fact you absolutely are (not that it invalidates your argument).
Not sure what spirits need to be tested in scholarly Christian journal articles or Christian podcasts.... do you think there is a demon involved here or is this supposed to be hyperbole?

I listen to it 3 times gave it a chance and disagreed with the part of Greek culture that Dr. Heiser was trying to use to illuminate scripture. I think it's a weak argument and its not the first time i have heard it. Many Muslims try to use it when they are saying that the Bible is nothing but porn.

Glad you gave it a listen Kev, but I've never met a Muslim who was aware of this recent research regarding the word ekballon . I know you've done some Muslim ministry have they actually been read up on this stuff specific issue? If they do what fools they are, it's a goofy argument to say that because some cultures had a higher level of modesty due to their misunderstanding of science and Paul decided not to put a stumbling block before them ...therefore the bible=porn. Actually, that statement doesn't even matter.
I could state any absolute truth and if you come back and say "well Muslims and Hindus make fun of the bible because of that" well it just doesn't matter what they do. They mock Yeshua being the son of G-d as well, so we shouldn't believe that because "the Muslims make fun of us"?

I didn't say that. But it sure does sound like you were. I said that true science witnesses to scripture and illuminating scripture with faulty science doesn't.
I find it odd that here when it is used against an agruement your trying to make science isn't a valid arguement but in some of our off forum discussions about atheist you agreed its our greatest weapon against them.

I'm not sure what private communication between us you are referring to; I think you may have my private communication confused with a different parla, maybe Zec?
Perhaps you are referring to my support of Intelligent Design and the fact that the Earth is in the perfect spot for life and for discovery (different locations in the Milky Way would make astronomy very difficult, etc.)? Logically speaking, I could have said I believe in the Flying spaghetti monster in some private communique with you, it doesn't change the validity of using Greek culture to understand a letter written to Greeks.
The scope of my perspective on this issue is that culture matters, and I don't think G-d was concerned about correcting humanity's feeble understanding of Anatomy,Biology,Physics,etc. at any stage of our colossal ignorance (including today). It's 66 books as it is, how big would you have it and who would have canonized it if it was filled with 21st century science which would have been meaningless to the ancients. I think it is fairly evident that G-d worked within the cultures only correcting moral issues and in Paul''s case avoiding additional stumbling blocks when they weren't necessary.
At any rate, we don't communicate often, maybe the perspective you thought I had has changed as I've learned more? I don't see how that has anything at all to do with the discussion at hand what I may have said several months back.

Now that ive the finger waving for me being a bad Messianic and my reasoning ability being questioned by the leaping to conclusion statement has been let's talk about the Nazirite vow.

Wow, now you are just off the cuff. I never implied any such thing; I happen to think you are a particularly good Messianic not bad. You inferred that I was appealing to authority by saying the scholar is an Evangelical and therefore correct.
I replied that as a fellow Messianic you should know better. I don't see how that is a moral judgement about your observance as a Messianic believer. Too much caffeine maybe?

1. The person must abstain from wine and fermented drink;
2. The hair could not be cut, and the beard could not be shaved;
3. Touching a dead body was prohibited.

Actually look at the list I provided, it includes the sacrifices before and after 1-3. No need to claim the hair growth as a sacrifice as you state bellow as the sacrifices are clearly laid out. SO I state again, the Nazarite was kādōš lašēm, not bōšet lašēm (holy to Hashem not shame to Hashem)

..There is also another issue at play. There are those who took the vow later in life for 40 days?? I may be wrong on the length but I know that when a person choose for themselves everthing I've read was it was temporary.

Torah instructs after completion of the vow to remove the hair and place it on the fire under the sacrificial container... not much to remove for 40 days. Doesn't sound like the norm.

Then there are those who are dedicated by there parents that are life long.

I'm only aware of 1 instance and in that case it was commanded by the angel of Hashem to Sampson's parents.

Hes talking to Greeks so it has to be something in Greek culture he's referencing and not trying to call the Long haired of a Nazarite shameful. Maybe the fact that in this era since the time of socrates it was a way for young greek men rebel and cause social discord by growing there hair long and put it in a "Spartan" Top Knott. Well at least in Athens.....which was the cultral hub of Greece. Theres an possible explaination for why long hair would be shameful to the Greeks that doesn't involve esoteric cultral knowledge revolving around genitalia.

It could be; would be neat to have a research paper on that to see what was found in Korinth, i.e. did the Athens bad boys influence the bad men in Korinth to make their hair knotty as well (I'm not mocking you just giddy it's almost 3am here). Was the time period correct regarding this? How many sources do we have or is it just a Josephus' style of history? You've covered part of the issue if it's true; now what about the angels?
As I said, the solution Heiser mentions covers all these issues including his lingering concern about a woman revealing her hair ... and because of the angels.

I'm still kind of confused why you are so up in arms about this; I don't see why you are other than perhaps a misunderstanding that you thought I was insulting you as a "bad Messianic"?
Not my intent, I apologize if it came off that way.

BTW if we want to start a "science and the bible" thread we can do that, but this I see as I've stated repeatedly "culture and the bible".
I don't see why Paul not correcting, or even errantly believing himself the medical literature of the day in anyway invalidates his status as Apostle or his writings as inspired.
As it stands, nobody has submitted even a complete alternate solution which addresses all of the points addressed in these verses:

Long hair in Torah not a shame, even part of sanctification
Women should have head covered...because of the angels

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

I haven't seen 1 person here accept the Heiser explanation so ... not sure what party line you aren't toting, in point of fact you absolutely are (not that it invalidates your argument).
Not sure what spirits need to be tested in scholarly Christian journal articles or Christian podcasts.... do you think there is a demon involved here or is this supposed to be hyperbole?


Glad you gave it a listen Kev, but I've never met a Muslim who was aware of this recent research regarding the word ekballon . I know you've done some Muslim ministry have they actually been read up on this stuff specific issue? If they do what fools they are, it's a goofy argument to say that because some cultures had a higher level of modesty due to their misunderstanding of science and Paul decided not to put a stumbling block before them ...therefore the bible=porn. Actually, that statement doesn't even matter.
I could state any absolute truth and if you come back and say "well Muslims and Hindus make fun of the bible because of that" well it just doesn't matter what they do. They mock Yeshua being the son of G-d as well, so we shouldn't believe that because "the Muslims make fun of us"?


I'm not sure what private communication between us you are referring to; I think you may have my private communication confused with a different parla, maybe Zec?
Perhaps you are referring to my support of Intelligent Design and the fact that the Earth is in the perfect spot for life and for discovery (different locations in the Milky Way would make astronomy very difficult, etc.)? Logically speaking, I could have said I believe in the Flying spaghetti monster in some private communique with you, it doesn't change the validity of using Greek culture to understand a letter written to Greeks.
The scope of my perspective on this issue is that culture matters, and I don't think G-d was concerned about correcting humanity's feeble understanding of Anatomy,Biology,Physics,etc. at any stage of our colossal ignorance (including today). It's 66 books as it is, how big would you have it and who would have canonized it if it was filled with 21st century science which would have been meaningless to the ancients. I think it is fairly evident that G-d worked within the cultures only correcting moral issues and in Paul''s case avoiding additional stumbling blocks when they weren't necessary.
At any rate, we don't communicate often, maybe the perspective you thought I had has changed as I've learned more? I don't see how that has anything at all to do with the discussion at hand what I may have said several months back.


Wow, now you are just off the cuff. I never implied any such thing; you inferred that I was appealing to authority by saying the scholar is an Evangelical and therefore correct.
I replied that as a fellow Messianic you should know better. I don't see how that is a moral judgement about your observance as a Messianic believer. Too much caffeine maybe?



Actually look at the list I provided, it includes the sacrifices before and after 1-3. No need to claim the hair growth as a sacrifice as you state bellow as the sacrifices are clearly laid out. SO I state again, the Nazarite was kādōš lašēm, not bōšet lašēm (holy to Hashem not shame to Hashem)


Torah instructs after completion of the vow to remove the hair and place it on the fire under the sacrificial container... not much to remove for 40 days. Doesn't sound like the norm.


I'm only aware of 1 instance and in that case it was commanded by the angel of Hashem to Sampson's parents.


It could be; would be neat to have a research paper on that to see what was found in Korinth, i.e. did the Athens bad boys influence the bad men in Korinth to make their hair knotty as well (I'm not mocking you just giddy it's almost 3am here). Was the time period correct regarding this? How many sources do we have or is it just a Josephus' style of history? You've covered part of the issue if it's true; now what about the angels?
As I said, the solution Heiser mentions covers all these issues including his lingering concern about a woman revealing her hair ... and because of the angels.

I'm still kind of confused why you are so up in arms about this; I don't see why you are other than perhaps a misunderstanding that you thought I was insulting you as a "bad Messianic"?
Not my intent, I apologize if it came off that way.

BTW if we want to start a "science and the bible" thread we can do that, but this I see as I've stated repeatedly "culture and the bible".
I don't see why Paul not correcting, or even errantly believing himself the medical literature of the day in anyway invalidates his status as Apostle or his writings as inspired.
As it stands, nobody has submitted even a complete alternate solution which addresses all of the points addressed in these verses:

Long hair in Torah not a shame, even part of sanctification
Women should have head covered...because of the angels

I’m calling bs on anybody who says men with more than *one wife don’t have time for ministry! That was doozy!

*edit

 

[IshChayil]

I’m calling bs on anybody who says men with more than *one wife don’t have time for ministry! That was doozy!

Haha, I'm trying to work on trimming my posts down...working on it...
I'm curiousthough , which men are those? (claiming having more than 1 wife makes 0 time for ministry).

Does adding a 2nd wife not take more time? ...a 12th kid?
How does one grow his family correctly by not giving additional time to the new souls?
Looks like most of us polygamous guys here have monogamous sized families so not really a good comparison to Paul's days/restrictions on polygamists then.
For me, 2 wives 3 kids, I decided those restrictions don't apply to me ... yet, but you darn well better believe if I ever have 5 wives and 20 kids I'll reconsider if I should be an elder or not. Seems perfectly reasonable (I think @Slumberfreeze made this point), that involvement in ministry may be a sliding scale from the ideal (Paul - 0 wives) to Solomon with 1000 (ya think any of Solomon's ladies and kids may have been a tiny bit neglected)?