Evidence for God from Science

Kenny wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Kenny wrote: I can understand learning from the bible, that's now what I'm asking. I'm asking do you apply everything in the bible to your life? Or do you assume some stuff is written for specific people and is only meant to be applied to them. In other words; is there a lot of stuff in the Bible like this letter Paul wrote that is not meant to be applied to modern man

This is the thing, it does apply to us, it applies in the lesson we learn from it, maybe not quite literal application but an application nevertheless. If there was no lesson or application to be learn't it would not have been included in the biblical canon.

So why does this apply to us, but it does not apply to Jesus?

Ken

I am not sure of the exact reason why Paul gave this instruction or advice, so I can't really comment, but I can make a guess. Maybe he was warning them not to cause a stir, that they would draw bad attention to themselves and others, because as Christians we should conduct ourselves ( if we can avoid it) in a way that doesn't incite violence and possibly endangering other peoples lives. Obviously this would apply to us also.

As for applying it to Jesus, he never incited violence if he could help it, obviously he died a violent death and was very angry when he tipped tables in the temple but I guess he couldn't avoid those situations and he would know if he could, because after all he is God.

If the goal was not to incite violence, it probably wouldn't apply to us today because today long hair isn't enough to incite violence; what do you think?

Ken

Your missing the point Ken, it's not just about long hair it is about any action that could incite violence.

Kenny wrote:

SeekingSanctuary wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Kenny wrote: I can understand learning from the bible, that's now what I'm asking. I'm asking do you apply everything in the bible to your life? Or do you assume some stuff is written for specific people and is only meant to be applied to them. In other words; is there a lot of stuff in the Bible like this letter Paul wrote that is not meant to be applied to modern man

This is the thing, it does apply to us, it applies in the lesson we learn from it, maybe not quite literal application but an application nevertheless. If there was no lesson or application to be learn't it would not have been included in the biblical canon.

So why does this apply to us, but it does not apply to Jesus?

Ken

Long is a relative word. We have to know what the accepted normal length was before we can guess what long was.

So are you saying his words are meaningless because he didn't specify how many inches long hair must be to be considered long

KEn

No, I'm saying that, like so many other verses in the Bible, this might take some more looking into to get historical context. I haven't look at the verse in context yet, but this strikes me as one of the ones you have to know the culture it came from to get it.

I'm also saying that while we might consider Jesus's hair long, Paul may not have. Heck, he may have considered it average. My hair, much shorter than Jesus's may have been, would be counted as long if I was surrounded by soldier's with burr cut.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:Your missing the point Ken, it's not just about long hair it is about any action that could incite violence.

So why didn't he say that? Why didn't he say "any action that could incite violence?" Rather than saying that men shouldn't have long hair?

Ken

This is what Jesus REALLY looked like:

Kenny wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:Your missing the point Ken, it's not just about long hair it is about any action that could incite violence.

So why didn't he say that? Why didn't he say "any action that could incite violence?" Rather than saying that men shouldn't have long hair?

Ken

Because he was talking about a specific situation and to a specific people, so he didn't need to say the exact because they would have already known, but the lesson can still be for all people of all times. Mind you this is just what I think it could mean, I could be way wrong, who knows really, maybe we never will. This is why you can't proof text the Bible, you have to read it as a whole to understand the message being portrayed in it, not just take some small snippet and say this means that.

RickD wrote:This is what Jesus REALLY looked like:

Wow! I like that Jesus more than the effeminate pictures of a limp-wristed-Jesus the Roman Catholics usually serve up.

...but your Jesus is too handsome, Ricardo. According to Isaiah, the Messiah would not be handsome, nor have any physical characteristic that would make us admire Him. While I'm at it, the Shroud Jesus is too tall & muscular to be the real Jesus as well. But I don't want to rain on the Shroud party, so I've decided to let that sacred cow alone.

FL

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

RickD wrote:This is what Jesus REALLY looked like:

Wow! I like that Jesus more than the effeminate pictures of a limp-wristed-Jesus the Roman Catholics usually serve up.

...but your Jesus is too handsome, Ricardo. According to Isaiah, the Messiah would not be handsome, nor have any physical characteristic that would make us admire Him. While I'm at it, the Shroud Jesus is too tall & muscular to be the real Jesus as well. But I don't want to rain on the Shroud party, so I've decided to let that sacred cow alone.

FL

The shroud image is distorted and covered in blood, burn marks etc... if you watch the recreation video's he was a fairly normal looking person, nothing stands out about him.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:Your missing the point Ken, it's not just about long hair it is about any action that could incite violence.

So why didn't he say that? Why didn't he say "any action that could incite violence?" Rather than saying that men shouldn't have long hair?

Ken

Because he was talking about a specific situation and to a specific people, so he didn't need to say the exact because they would have already known, but the lesson can still be for all people of all times. Mind you this is just what I think it could mean, I could be way wrong, who knows really, maybe we never will. This is why you can't proof text the Bible, you have to read it as a whole to understand the message being portrayed in it, not just take some small snippet and say this means that.

Then that goes back to what I mentioned before; that what Paul said about men and long hair can be dismissed by people of today because what he really meant was different than what he actually said! Right?

Kenny wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:Your missing the point Ken, it's not just about long hair it is about any action that could incite violence.

So why didn't he say that? Why didn't he say "any action that could incite violence?" Rather than saying that men shouldn't have long hair?

Ken

Because he was talking about a specific situation and to a specific people, so he didn't need to say the exact because they would have already known, but the lesson can still be for all people of all times. Mind you this is just what I think it could mean, I could be way wrong, who knows really, maybe we never will. This is why you can't proof text the Bible, you have to read it as a whole to understand the message being portrayed in it, not just take some small snippet and say this means that.

Then that goes back to what I mentioned before; that what Paul said about men and long hair can be dismissed by people of today because what he really meant was different than what he actually said! Right?

Err no his meaning would always be the same, it is the context that is different.
Long hair in some countries may cause offence and possible violence, so it is still relevant in some societies, but in saying that, the deeper meaning still remains relevant for all societies.
If that's what Paul even mean't, like I said I am only guessing, I am no theologian.

Let me see if I can make this clearer.

When we understand the context of the passage we uncover the meaning.

The long hair issue may not be the real meaning behind what Paul was saying, if we understand the context surrounding the issue of the hair we will uncover the true meaning of what Paul was trying to convey, this is why I said earlier that proof texting is silly, we have to understand it in it's proper context.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:Let me see if I can make this clearer.

When we understand the context of the passage we uncover the meaning.

The long hair issue may not be the real meaning behind what Paul was saying, if we understand the context surrounding the issue of the hair we will uncover the true meaning of what Paul was trying to convey, this is why I said earlier that proof texting is silly, we have to understand it in it's proper context.

And what is the proper context? And true meaning of what Paul was trying to say?

Ken

Kenny wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:Let me see if I can make this clearer.

When we understand the context of the passage we uncover the meaning.

The long hair issue may not be the real meaning behind what Paul was saying, if we understand the context surrounding the issue of the hair we will uncover the true meaning of what Paul was trying to convey, this is why I said earlier that proof texting is silly, we have to understand it in it's proper context.

And what is the proper context? And true meaning of what Paul was trying to say?

Ken

I can only guess, I don't know Greek history, I can't read Koine Greek or Hebrew, I am not a theologian or a historian.

I will leave that for more qualified people, I was just giving an example of meaning and how that applies to all people of all times.

With out understanding proper context, application of your limited understanding to Jesus is just silly.

Kenny wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:Let me see if I can make this clearer.

When we understand the context of the passage we uncover the meaning.

The long hair issue may not be the real meaning behind what Paul was saying, if we understand the context surrounding the issue of the hair we will uncover the true meaning of what Paul was trying to convey, this is why I said earlier that proof texting is silly, we have to understand it in it's proper context.

And what is the proper context? And true meaning of what Paul was trying to say?

Ken

Ken, its a fairly logical process...the best way to read scripture is to see the author's intention.

Why did Paul say that?...because his audience lived in a culture where TEMPLE PROSTITUTION was a common thing. Men and women worked in the temples for this purpose. Teenage boys could look real effeminate if they have long hair, decorations and such. This used to be a sign that these guys were "open" to being approached for sexual purpose. And unlike Hollywood movie adaptations the Greek women covered their heads. So the mark of the prostitute was that she would uncover her head, so that without causing any stir people could know and her customers could come to her.

Paul makes the comparison in that chapter. He says (paraphrased) "don't you know its shameful for a man to have long hair" and "its shameful for the woman to uncover her head, if she uncovers she should cut off her hair".

Ken, have you ever say any roman statue or bust or painting where men have long hair?

No.

Because "long hair on man is a shameful thing" was a very "roman belief" and Paul was a roman citizen. He was brought up in a culture where long hair was a problem on men. And in his letter was addressing a culture where people were not behaving correctly and Paul informs them that in the prevalent Roman culture (which ruled almost a lot of countries) it's considered a shame. So they are bringing a shame on the church, since the church which was in its infancy would look like a place of sex-worship just like the pagan temple sex-practices, because the gentiles would look upon men with long hair and women with uncovered heads in the church and mistake them for something else.

Jesus on the other hand was a Nazarene, and the Nazarene used to keep their beards and hair long. That was their culture. Jesus was a rabbi and therefore must have had a beard too.

Today ofcourse this is just a trivial thing form paul...its certainly not a commandment, he never said it was. And I don't even see why is this an issue. Some of the things he said are not trivial though and we do try to follow that.

I would encourage you to do a bible study in detail to get to the nuances of the text.

neo-x wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:Let me see if I can make this clearer.

When we understand the context of the passage we uncover the meaning.

The long hair issue may not be the real meaning behind what Paul was saying, if we understand the context surrounding the issue of the hair we will uncover the true meaning of what Paul was trying to convey, this is why I said earlier that proof texting is silly, we have to understand it in it's proper context.

And what is the proper context? And true meaning of what Paul was trying to say?

Ken

Ken, its a fairly logical process...the best way to read scripture is to see the author's intention.

Why did Paul say that?...because his audience lived in a culture where TEMPLE PROSTITUTION was a common thing. Men and women worked in the temples for this purpose. Teenage boys could look real effeminate if they have long hair, decorations and such. This used to be a sign that these guys were "open" to being approached for sexual purpose. And unlike Hollywood movie adaptations the Greek women covered their heads. So the mark of the prostitute was that she would uncover her head, so that without causing any stir people could know and her customers could come to her.

Paul makes the comparison in that chapter. He says (paraphrased) "don't you know its shameful for a man to have long hair" and "its shameful for the woman to uncover her head, if she uncovers she should cut off her hair".

Ken, have you ever say any roman statue or bust or painting where men have long hair?

No.

Because "long hair on man is a shameful thing" was a very "roman belief" and Paul was a roman citizen. He was brought up in a culture where long hair was a problem on men. And in his letter was addressing a culture where people were not behaving correctly and Paul informs them that in the prevalent Roman culture (which ruled almost a lot of countries) it's considered a shame. So they are bringing a shame on the church, since the church which was in its infancy would look like a place of sex-worship just like the pagan temple sex-practices, because the gentiles would look upon men with long hair and women with uncovered heads in the church and mistake them for something else.

Jesus on the other hand was a Nazarene, and the Nazarene used to keep their beards and hair long. That was their culture. Jesus was a rabbi and therefore must have had a beard too.

Today ofcourse this is just a trivial thing form paul...its certainly not a commandment, he never said it was. And I don't even see why is this an issue. Some of the things he said are not trivial though and we do try to follow that.

I would encourage you to do a bible study in detail to get to the nuances of the text.

So if I understand you correctly, this is something that can be dismissed by modern man?

Yes, its cultural not spiritual...and even in that old world the jews dismissed it on a cultural basis, take Jesus for example, and even before that the point of having long hair was also to show that the person in question had a vow and unless his vows are completed, he won't cut his hair...for example in the west people may have long hair and the culture would accept that. In Pakistan, where I live, boys with long hair are considered "not manly enough"...so can you see how that is something which is no one's fault.

The thing to note is, that Paul wrote to a people. The authors intent is not to pass down an objective commandment, he is in the middle of correcting the church and people who don't know any better. It is better for us if we can discern between commands and preferences of the author, if we can see his intent and purpose in writing such and such, throughout the scriptures.

In the current day analogy, what if a pastor of a suburban church in america, dressed like an afghan soldier close to OBL. Don't you think his dressing would carry with it a negative connotation and that it would be best if such were avoided? In the same vein, Paul told the church, why are doing something which will cause problems of perception, especially when christian faith is new and infant and is already a victim of bad impressions?