LOL I got it.
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
An alternative take on head coverings
- Thread starter IshChayil
- Start date
Yeah I just logged in to ask ifmunwere trying to be funny lol
Post it here bro, nephalim are relevant
Just so we're clear I presented this arguement and most of the arguments, such as the Rabinical determination of what Beni Elohim meant, because an opposing theory was asked for not because it's what I hold to. I still don't beleive what Dr. Heiser proposed is correct or that Paul was speaking to Greeks only but a mixed congregation that was suppose to be called out from what ever culture the originally belonged to into a new culture of the Kingdom, and that is what He is speaking of.
My favorite one, won't let me upload it but here are a few good ones.
Some of these make the mistake and lump the fallen watchers from Mt. Hermon with the rebel host. Plus I want to state that this first video says Angels had free will because the could defy G-d. I personal see free will as the ability to believe or deny in G-ds existance. In that sense Angels did not have freewill.
This is one @Patricia C shared with me
Last edited:
Thank you Kevin I look forward to watching the others. I love when Father reveals truths to us.... not that I believe everything I read. Holy Spirit helps me with discernment.
Oh hey... it's Rob Skiba! I like him.
I super-like Chuck Missler.
Aw crap... but I don't want to be descended from nephilim women....
Sure, I’m chill with that. Like you, I also disagree sometimes just to see how the discussion turns. I think the biggest challenge you propose is the concept of a mixed congregation in this instance. This opens up many possibilities over the simplistic culture A or culture B.
It certainly could be that any Jews in the congregation were likely Hellenized in which case aspects of Greek culture would also be theirs. Could also be that the Greeks were ger toshav status. I think you hinted at this. For others reading there used to be 2mkinds of conversionsJudaism practiced.
1. Hardcore, long version took a year or more full conversiona to Judaism
2. The ger toshav conversion - conversion out of paganism to the G-d of Israel
Many gerey toshav often went on to become full converts so there could be a wide range of mix.
3. All Greeks, new converts to “the way” fresh out of paganism
3. Seems to be what often caused confusion and developed a strange quasi-status for Gentiles among Israel. Where they Israel? The broader Israelite community of course rejected fast conversions to the way leading to full citizenship status and Roman secular authorities had laws for pagans and separate ones for Jew somagain these followers of the way didn’t fit. We see this dealt with in the letter to the Galatians.
Ok gotta eat and posting from tablet driving me batty.
**** edit *****
You,said I asked for an opposing theory...allow me to clarify. I am not asking for some contrived answer. Since you don’t agree with the theory you presented my statement stands at least for you, there is currently not a full answerthat there doesn’t seem to be a credible answer on the table which encompasses the hair, the long hair man shame, and the angel stuff except for what started this thread...the dr. heiser Podcast.
Last edited:
I’ve been thinking about this idea of the man having long hair and have enjoyed the differing views presented. Somethings that have been floating around in my mind about the Nazarite vows,
Any man could vow a Nazarite vow, few of them were lifelong. Most were to be until the end of the year or until The Fast began at Yom Teruah/Rosh Hoshanna. During this period, (as I understand it) due to the stipulations against bathing and cutting their hair, they were to be considered as unclean for Temple admittance, yet holy due to their sanctification. Prior to Yom Teruah, those who had a temporary vow would bathe and shave their heads and resume interaction within the Temple for the 10 days of the fast.
Perhaps this is why it was a shame for a man to have long hair, because it effectively categorized them along with the other unwelcome guests to the Temple such as those who had physical handicaps or infirmities or who were otherwise ceremonially unclean.
They were in effect outwardly unclean, yet inwardly holy and acceptable before God.
(It’s been a while since I studied on the Nazarite vows and their relation to the feast days. I don’t recall off the top of my head the source material for the vows above. If anyone has a dissenting understanding, perhaps I’ll take the time to source these thoughts, otherwise I’ve enjoyed observing the topic)
Any man could vow a Nazarite vow, few of them were lifelong. Most were to be until the end of the year or until The Fast began at Yom Teruah/Rosh Hoshanna. During this period, (as I understand it) due to the stipulations against bathing and cutting their hair, they were to be considered as unclean for Temple admittance, yet holy due to their sanctification. Prior to Yom Teruah, those who had a temporary vow would bathe and shave their heads and resume interaction within the Temple for the 10 days of the fast.
Perhaps this is why it was a shame for a man to have long hair, because it effectively categorized them along with the other unwelcome guests to the Temple such as those who had physical handicaps or infirmities or who were otherwise ceremonially unclean.
They were in effect outwardly unclean, yet inwardly holy and acceptable before God.
(It’s been a while since I studied on the Nazarite vows and their relation to the feast days. I don’t recall off the top of my head the source material for the vows above. If anyone has a dissenting understanding, perhaps I’ll take the time to source these thoughts, otherwise I’ve enjoyed observing the topic)
I posted "contrived" answers that are accepted and held by many others, to give options to what the Author proclaimed the only explaination. Individuals can agree or disagree with them. It promotes growth. Your half right though, there is nothing on this thread including the original post that gives a credible answer "to the long hair man shame, and the angel stuff". Credibility is relative to the individual and the audience. You can say some one or thing is credible but if others don't accept it as credible then it's only credible to you. Many of the the "contrived" answers ,though not credible to you, are credible to a vast number of people. You have given your opinion about them. If you wish to discredit them (no point there opinion aswell) please show an Authoritive source proving them wrong that is not open to interpitation. That is basically what your asking of the original statement, please do the same with the counter arguments. No need for the because of Angels that scriptural. Is sad but the arguement I presented about the miss translation of messengers from G-d and the Beni Elohim meaning those in authority are what's taught in several christian seminaries and are considered credible to those who teach or attend those seminaries. I concede Paul was speaking of Angels. Now show me Authoritive proof of what the rest of the good Dr is claiming in his opinion. I guess the main issue is the podcast was presented as Authoritive.
Last edited:
Too late, its always been considered cannon by the Ethiopian church.
Or as Rob Skiba puts it...Synchronized, Biblically Endorsed, Extra-Biblical Texts.
Speaking of which, anyone know where I can get a translation of the Ethiopic version of Enoch?
Here's what I use:
http://www.bahaistudies.net/asma/enoch1d.pdf
I'm sure there it exists on a non-bahai website somewhere but this is always the first one that pops up when I go looking, and I like the translation.
http://www.bahaistudies.net/asma/enoch1d.pdf
I'm sure there it exists on a non-bahai website somewhere but this is always the first one that pops up when I go looking, and I like the translation.
Here are a couple. The Ethiopians were the only ones to preserve the complete work. Everything else was fragments, most notably from the Dead Sea scrolls.
The next time I see you I'll get the other books I lent you and loan you mine if you want paper in hand.
Last edited:
Nope, I never claimed it as authoritative, just neato.
Didn’t mean to push your buttons calling “what you wrote but don’t believe” as contrived, I thought that’s kinda the definition of contrived. Glad you ceded the point about angels; it’s a good lesson for others here who sometimes just look at a gloss of a Greek or Hebrew word and think they can just select whatever they like from the list of high level definitions.
So far the Dr Heiser, And Martin position is the only scholarly explanation I’ve seen that answers it all neatly.
I’m very satisfied with it though I always present it as a “possibility” when it comes up in teaching settings.
Hardly a nail-in-the-coffin just the best we can do ...so far. I’m not a fan of “this definitely means this” teaching when I know there are variations out there.
Gotta run and get something for shabbat. Shabbat shalom!
Hey you don’t mean 1 Enoch where the Greek and Aramaic ar considered much more reliable, you are talking about other books which have the title Enoch but decidedly different authorship right?
Just like one of the much later books with the same name is only fully available in Old Slavonic...another in Coptic...
If you mean first Enoch can you share why you are interested later translation over the Greek and Aramaic?
Curious what you are looking for (and what I may have missed)
Not you the article with the podcast
Contrived means deliberately created rather than arising naturally or spontaneously. Artifical, phony, false, manifactured, amongst a few others.
I was being contrary.