Unearthed: Corinth in Context | Biblical Archaeology | Roman Empire | SAGU
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 окт 2024
- Christopher Gornold-Smith discusses the biblical city of Corinth and how an understanding of the ancient city affects our understanding of the text today. Special emphasis is given to the geography, political history, archaeology, religion, and historical texts in order to fully understand this ancient Roman city.
To find out more about SAGU, visit www.sagu.edu
Southwestern Assemblies of God University is a private Christian university located in Waxahachie, TX near Dallas and Fort Worth. SAGU offers more than 70 Christ-centered academic programs - associate, bachelor's, master's, and doctorate degrees in liberal arts and bible and church ministries.
To view more SAGU video content, check out www.sagu.tv
I would like to add my two cents here after reading this discussion. First of all I believe we should follow the teaching in 1st Corinthians 11, I don’t think there is a separate verse that would null what Paul wrote in chapter 11. The main problem here is the misunderstanding of 1st Corinthians 11 altogether. I also have made an intense study of this passage, and the obvious conclusion is that Paul was referring to long hair being the covering.
The first thing one should take notice is the lack of wording required to conclude that a veil is being referred to here. The word veil or cloth is not in the text if we read from the King James version. If you read from the “modern” versions then you might get that view but not from the Textus Receptus.
I would like for you to reread the verses that allegedly refer to a veil which is 4-7 and 13. In those verses we read the words, cover, uncovered and not covered. According to scholars these are used as adverbs. Like if you were to say I am going to cover my feet. No one should be thinking of a veil just the action of being covered. What is missing in these verses are nouns that would prove the idea of veils. Since we should not be assuming anything we should be asking the question what is the thing that a woman should be covered WITH based on the passage ALONE? So if you do the math you would find that Paul refers to hair directly 3 times and then indirectly 4 times with the words shorn and shaven. So if there is no noun for the word veil or cloth yet there are 7 instances of idea of hair, then what are we to conclude? That Paul is referring to hair whether it be short or long.
But the counterargument would be that Paul is allegedly telling women to put something on. But that is not exactly true it says a woman should be covered, but he is referring to long hair based on the surrounding verses. But what about that a woman ought to be covered when praying or prophesying? The assumption is a that Paul was referring to only two instances which is not true he was merely giving us two examples. This also applies to men about being uncovered. Evidence of this is written in the forgoing verses. Paul writes that men ought not to cover because he is the image and glory of God. And then Paul goes into how woman was made for man and is the glory of the man. So it would seem that man shouldn’t be covered at any time if he is the glory and image of God. Paul also mentions that the mere observation of a praying woman should make us note how uncomely (unappealing in appearance) for a woman to be uncovered. Paul states this in a way that it should be obvious to anyone that she looks off in verse 13. He does this again in verse 14 about how shameful it looks if a man has long hair. He says it this way…
Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? KJV
So this judgement that we should make is exclusively based on observation of an “uncovered” woman as well as a long haired man. Two consecutive questions both appealing to something innate or within us. Paul is in essence saying that it should be obvious to see that something is wrong or off.
So how is it that for the women we are somehow to know within us that a woman would be unappealing in appearance without a manufactured veil? That does not seem logical especially since the word veil is never mentioned. Unless that is not what Paul is meaning but rather that if the woman was not covered in long hair (meaning her hair is short) doing something holy or godly LIKE praying or prophesying. I think most people can relate that looking at a woman with short hair does have an unappealing appearance. It naturally provokes head turns. And if there was any question Paul flat out states what he was talking about in verse 15.
So the facts are that there no nouns to use as evidence of a veil. There is evidence that Paul was using praying and prophesying as examples. Paul appeals to nature and something innate within us to judge that being uncovered or covered (meaning having short hair or long hair) should be obvious to all. So this cannot make sense with a manufactured veil.
I’m so glad I came upon this video! Outstanding!
Really you think so? He reads 3 verses and then says we have to read in the proper context. How is reading 3 verses proper context? He concludes that because one does not prophesy to oneself that this is referring to church meetings. Doesn't that seem odd? Why not equally assume that Paul is saying that whenever you prophesy to one or more people anywhere at any time? Location really never mentioned, right? Why insert the words "church meetings" when its not mentioned. This does not seem like an exegesis approach. So as a result of his first conclusion he assumes that the prayer mentioned must be public prayer ergo in a church. This seems to have a snowball affect to the rest of his conclusions because then he quotes again verse 5 and simply assumes that a woman that prays or prophesies it must mean it is happening in a church meeting. It is not obvious that this is all occurring in a church meeting as the necessary words to accept such an idea are not found and is concluded according to this man simply because one doesn’t prophesy to themselves.
What a blessing!!. Thank you so much for sharing and to all you contributed to the making and distribution of this video. It truly is eye opening. May God bless you all abundantly!!!
Really you think so? He reads 3 verses and then says we have to read in the proper context. How is reading 3 verses proper context? He concludes that because one does not prophesy to oneself that this is referring to church meetings. Doesn't that seem odd? Why not equally assume that Paul is saying that whenever you prophesy to one or more people anywhere at any time? Location really never mentioned, right? Why insert the words "church meetings" when its not mentioned. This does not seem like an exegesis approach. So as a result of his first conclusion he assumes that the prayer mentioned must be public prayer ergo in a church. This seems to have a snowball affect to the rest of his conclusions because then he quotes again verse 5 and simply assumes that a woman that prays or prophesies it must mean it is happening in a church meeting. It is not obvious that this is all occurring in a church meeting as the necessary words to accept such an idea are not found and is concluded according to this man simply because one doesn’t prophesy to themselves.
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matteryes I really think so. Your entitled to your opinion and I'm happy for you. And I didn't call his lecture perfect or 100% accurate but enlightening and it was for me. If it wasn't for you, I'm sorry to hear that. He made it pretty clear he wasn't an archaeologist or an expert. He came from a pastoral perspective and also mentions how some points aren't the "all truth" but rather his view. Anyone who watches this at takes it all to heart and walks away without examining it, isn't following the Word of God. Which calls us to test what we receive and to seek out for ourselves if one is speaking truth. We're all human and limited, constantly growing and learning and unlike you I'm a simpleton in these matter and compared to many of the more scholarly and I'm sure "more accurate" lectures I've watched from this channel and many others bore me or confuse me. Some of us simply enjoying learning about the environment and times of the Corinth Church. He gave me something beautiful because now I see more when I read some of the verses in Corinthians, understanding a bit about the times they lived and where they came from. We are to eat the meat and spit out the bones in life. Not throw the baby out with the bathwater. I simply follow how God says we are to learn and also be thankful for all we received and choose the good and edifying parts.
@@kanayaqagana8881 Well at least we can agree that this is coming from HIS view because it doesn’t look like it agrees with scripture. I agree that “Anyone who watches this at takes it all to heart and walks away without examining it, isn't following the Word of God.” That is why I did my examination of his words and found them to be illogical. Like the Bereans I questioned and examined his view, and it definitely falls short from the facts. He concludes that because one does not prophesy to oneself that this is referring to church meetings. Then takes this logic and fits it to other parts of the passage which in turn gives a different take to what one actually reads. So maybe like you said you prefer to be entertained and learn his version of the time and his version what he assumes they did or lived. And I can concur that it is interesting but even he said a couple of times that he wasn’t sure about some things therefore we cannot assume that what he is saying is true and therefore take what he says with a grain of salt.
So are there parts that are good? Sure and no one is saying that one should claim that it is all bad, but there is nothing wrong with pointing out the errors. It is our job as believers to help the church become more perfect not act like there is not wrong with what anyone says like it is a crime to have a critique or point out a mistake. 2 Timothy 4:2
This was SO good. Thank you!
Really you think so? He reads 3 verses and then says we have to read in the proper context. How is reading 3 verses proper context? He concludes that because one does not prophesy to oneself that this is referring to church meetings. Doesn't that seem odd? Why not equally assume that Paul is saying that whenever you prophesy to one or more people anywhere at any time? Location really never mentioned, right? Why insert the words "church meetings" when its not mentioned. This does not seem like an exegesis approach. So as a result of his first conclusion he assumes that the prayer mentioned must be public prayer ergo in a church. This seems to have a snowball affect to the rest of his conclusions because then he quotes again verse 5 and simply assumes that a woman that prays or prophesies it must mean it is happening in a church meeting. It is not obvious that this is all occurring in a church meeting as the necessary words to accept such an idea are not found and is concluded according to this man simply because one doesn’t prophesy to themselves.
This was good! I heard from Dr. Myles Munroe that the passage about women having their head covered, was about female temple prostitutes who got saved. He said that it was the culture to signify to people the women who were temple prostitutes, they shaved their hair off. And that after they got saved, they were being approached. So, Paul recommends to cover their head until it grows back.
And the passage about men cutting their hair was about the Male temple prostitutes. To indicate they were a temple prostitute, the men had long hair like a woman. The same reason for the women, Paul recommends they cut their hair, so they would not get approached anymore. Or to dissasociate from that lifestyle.
I have watched the video and something did not seem right then I go to the latest comments and confirm that the conclusion of the presenter is really off simply because of bad reasoning. I would suggest reading FA God's words matters' comment below this person goes in depth. So instead of wasting time writing was was already written here is a paste of what they wrote that I agree with.
"He reads three verses and then tries to convince his audience that we have to read in the proper context. But he only reads 3 verses??? How is that proper context? He concludes that because one does not prophesy to oneself that this is referring to church meetings. That is a lot to assume. Why not equally assume that Paul is saying that whenever you prophesy to one or more people anywhere at any time? Why restrict the meaning to a very specific location when location is never mentioned? He says that if prophecy is involved it has to do with church meetings, that is not a biblical exegesis of the passage. Then because of his first conclusion he then assumes that the prayer mentioned must be public prayer ergo in a church. This seems to have a snowball affect to the rest of his conclusions because then he quotes again verse 5 and simply assumes that a woman that prays or prophesies must mean it is happening in a church meeting. It is not obvious that this is all occurring in a church meeting as the necessary words to accept such an idea are not found and is concluded according to this man simply because one doesn’t prophesy to themselves."
🎉Great discourse/lecture, Professor. Thank you.
Really you think so? He reads 3 verses and then says we have to read in the proper context. How is reading 3 verses proper context? He concludes that because one does not prophesy to oneself that this is referring to church meetings. Doesn't that seem odd? Why not equally assume that Paul is saying that whenever you prophesy to one or more people anywhere at any time? Location really never mentioned, right? Why insert the words "church meetings" when its not mentioned. This does not seem like an exegesis approach. So as a result of his first conclusion he assumes that the prayer mentioned must be public prayer ergo in a church. This seems to have a snowball affect to the rest of his conclusions because then he quotes again verse 5 and simply assumes that a woman that prays or prophesies it must mean it is happening in a church meeting. It is not obvious that this is all occurring in a church meeting as the necessary words to accept such an idea are not found and is concluded according to this man simply because one doesn’t prophesy to themselves.
Excellent video. Thanks for sharing. Love the section on head-coverings, helps my understanding of a tricky passage a lot.
Really you think so? He reads 3 verses and then says we have to read in the proper context. How is reading 3 verses proper context? He concludes that because one does not prophesy to oneself that this is referring to church meetings. Doesn't that seem odd? Why not equally assume that Paul is saying that whenever you prophesy to one or more people anywhere at any time? Location really never mentioned, right? Why insert the words "church meetings" when its not mentioned. This does not seem like an exegesis approach. So as a result of his first conclusion he assumes that the prayer mentioned must be public prayer ergo in a church. This seems to have a snowball affect to the rest of his conclusions because then he quotes again verse 5 and simply assumes that a woman that prays or prophesies it must mean it is happening in a church meeting. It is not obvious that this is all occurring in a church meeting as the necessary words to accept such an idea are not found and is concluded according to this man simply because one doesn’t prophesy to themselves.
Thanks for the video..it's a great Hermeneutics tool to understand the true and real context of Paul's writings to the Corinthians
Bong _Qui You are very welcome!
@Bong_Qui what do u think about when it says if a woman have long hair its glory to her bc her hair given to her for a covering and does not nature teach u that if a man have long hair its wrong...im interested in wht anyone thinks. I was tuaght this whole chapter is talking about uncut hair for a woman
@@marynotmartha3139 The first clue something is "odd" is Paul's declaration of nature teaching its a shame for a male to have long hair. Where in nature is this teaching??? Its nowhere in the natural world. The male lion is the closest creature in nature with long hair. But the lion is the opposite in the natural world. The longer the mane the more his age and status is signalling the other lions, male and female. It is certainly not a shame for the male lion to have a long mane.
So again, where in nature is this example of shame for long hair? How long is "long hair" anyway?? The Bible does not give the answers. From experience I know this means Paul is referencing something in the local culture. Since church leaders and many scholars don't know what that is, then they just make up stuff that fits how they think the passages should say.
Hint: Dr Heiser has a whole talk on the topic. It has to do with Roman medical beliefs at the time. Its the only logical answer with evidence.
Interesting,very enjoyable.Thank you..God bless Steve
Stephen Cellucci Glad you enjoyed it Stephen!
This was excellent!
Why did Paul appeal to nature (doth not even nature tell you that if a man have long hair... etc) when arguing over the cutting of hair if it was a matter of their culture?
I am willing to be corrected about my previous comment given a reference to Aristophanes in various quarters, but the word is not in my classical dictionary. In other words Aristophanes may have coined the word Corinthiadzes for his own purposes but the verb was not in general usage and therefore it is stretching the point to say that Corinth was a by-word (literally) for fornication.
Excellent
so it was Las Vegas from the New Testament? how they deal with STD??????
Stuttgart is calling!
What about v 15 when it says woman has long hair its given her a covering and its glory to her...and where it says its wrong for a man to have long hair
With all due respect this does not start out well. He reads three verses and then tries to convince his audience that we have to read in the proper context. But he only reads 3 verses??? How is that proper context? He concludes that because one does not prophesy to oneself that this is referring to church meetings. That is a lot to assume. Why not equally assume that Paul is saying that whenever you prophesy to one or more people anywhere at any time? Why restrict the meaning to a very specific location when location is never mentioned? He says that if prophecy is involved it has to do with church meetings, that is not a biblical exegesis of the passage. Then because of his first conclusion he then assumes that the prayer mentioned must be public prayer ergo in a church. This seems to have a snowball affect to the rest of his conclusions because then he quotes again verse 5 and simply assumes that a woman that prays or prophesies must mean it is happening in a church meeting. It is not obvious that this is all occurring in a church meeting as the necessary words to accept such an idea are not found and is concluded according to this man simply because one doesn’t prophesy to themselves.
Then the presenter goes on a very long speech about location, trading, archeology etc all of which are somewhat interesting assuming they are 100 percent true (I say this because even he mentions that not all they gathered from writings are believed to be accurate) but it doesn’t really tie into the verses in question. When he finally “comes back to the text” he refers to the section on praying and prophesying but then verbally adds in the word “public” as though it were supposed to be understood that way. This is disingenuous and is, in a way, “leading the witness” so to speak.
He then quotes 1 Corinthians 11:5 and 13 and puts in brackets the word “wife” next the word “woman” because as he puts it: “I don’t think it should be translated “every woman.” He goes on to try to convince the audience that it should really mean “wife” and not “woman” by noting that they are interchangeable and by some obscure “expression” by a Greek Middle Platonist philosopher, historian, biographer, essayist, and priest at the Temple of Apollo named Plutarch. In that the expression “to take the veil” means the same as to marry. First it doesn’t help that the Plutarch is not a believer and second, that we are to somehow allow ONE expression to define biblical meaning. But the translators of the KJV thought it best to use the word woman and that is because there is enough evidence to conclude the passage is referring to all men and all women. For example, verses 8 and 9 delve into the order of creation, which obviously includes everyone whether they are married or not. “For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man CREATED for the woman; but the woman for the man.
Also, if we read verses 4 and 5, which begin with the words: “Every man…” and “…every woman,” we can see they are referring to all men and all women.
“EVERY man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But EVERY woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.”
If you try to replace the word woman with wife or man with husband, you will note how it doesn’t make sense in some parts. You will also have to deal with the implications of this idea in that therefore all the SINGLE men CAN wear a covering or all the SINGLE women can be WITHOUT a covering and I'm sure many veil promoters would not like that. It's simply saying that every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered (in LONG hair), dishonors his head and that every woman that prays or prophesies with her head uncovered (meaning NOT covered in long hair aka short hair} dishonors her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.”
The presenter then tries to convince the audience that the Roman married women allegedly covered their heads and quotes a book on “Roman clothing and fashion” that says that “no respectable woman would leave her home without her head covered….” He notably admits that “it is not a Christian book at all”. So what is the purpose of mentioning this? What is the goal here? Why should a believer care how ROMAN women dressed as they had their own reasons? The reason should be obvious in that it is to make one believe in the interpretation that women means wives and to cover means to cover in a veil. This is what he does when he reads again verses 5-6 but verbally adding in words wife, husband and veil basically to mean that is what Paul was really meaning to say.
He also tries to convince the audience that in the part of the passage that states that the woman’s hair should be cut off, that this is tied into the alleged Roman local law (in the island of Cyprus) that a woman who was guilty of adultery should have her hair cut off and be a harlot. Except for the harlot part this is his interpretation to Paul’s meaning.
In short, he is basically saying that the culture of the time dictated what a Christian was supposed to do. Most people who do not like the idea that Paul wrote this passage due to the culture of the time (like me) will find this utterly foolish. Especially since this was meant to be read to all believers and not once did Paul say this was cultural in basis. This also flies in the face of verses 8 and 9 that refer to creation order as the reason why men ought to be uncovered (have short hair) and women covered (in long hair). Therefore, Roman culture cannot play any part in this though many people will find stories to make one think this is what Paul meant. This explanation is far too easily disproved if one simply reads the entire passage and not just on a couple of verses that the presenter doubts the meaning of the words that he is literally reading. (aka woman).
The sea South of the heel of Italy is the Ionian. The Adriatic is only North of the Italian heel. Mainland Greece lays between the Ionian Sea to the West and the Aegean Sea to the East. Interestingly, Ionia was nowhere near the Ionian Sea. In its day it comprised much of coastal Anatolia.
WOW
41:25
1 Corinthians 6 does not say "homosexuals." That's a false translation.
Hallo Keith :)
There is no such word in classical Greek as Corinthiadzw. The verb relating to fornication is porneuw from which is derived the word pornography.
Hallo Daniele :)
like the Crete's reputation? LOLOL
I don't understand why anyone would think this teaching was any good. The foundation that he lays is nonsensical. It is not based on Scripture just his beliefs. There no mention of Church services or meetings or gatherings but yet he somehow injects the idea, This in turn causes him to believe in other ideas.
Without cultural context one injects his own opinions on the Scriptures. These are letters to specific people doing specific things therefore knowing who these people are and what they were engaging with allows us to understand the how Paul’s instruction was being received.
@@sirm8007 But there is no need for “cultural context” here plus that is not the issue regarding his interpretations. He assumes church services simply because “one cannot prophesy to oneself” He makes very bad conclusions and as a result of being wrong like the example I gave he uses that to make another wrong idea. In other words his logic is flawed.
@@GodsWordisTruth-zg1jj you pointed out above that there is “no mention of Church meetings” the book of Corinthians does mention where they meet though
“The churches in the province of Asia send you greetings. Aquila and Priscilla greet you warmly in the Lord, and so does the church that meets at their house.”
1 Corinthians 16:19
These are the people to at Paul mentions in chapter 1 that he baptized. I will say there are other areas that he injects his theories but a follower of Christ does not need to take those theories as true. I thought it was a good overview of the culture at the time and as for the scripture interpretations you have to take those with a grain of salt.
@@sirm8007 I don’t doubt that they met or had some kind of meeting at some point. But to call it a “church meeting” is not accurate. Because when someone makes such a declaration most people will automatically think it is like how church functions today, when it never even closely looked like that. It’s just best to say that they met in their homes, where they discussed God’s words, sang psalms, prophesied, spoke in tongues and translated in tongues etc. Though I normally wouldn’t have an issue stating that the “church got together” but under the specific understanding that it is not like people do today.
Plus the word “church” written in the bible like you mentioned “The churches in the province of Asia send you greetings. Aquila and Priscilla greet you warmly in the Lord, and so does the church that meets at their house.” 1 Corinthians 16:19 relates to people as obviously a church building cannot salute and am in agreement with.
Though I also thought that there were moments when the host spoke on some meritorious point on the culture at the time but even he was doubtful of some of the things he was saying and as for the scripture interpretations I fully agree with you that we have to take those with a grain of salt.
If you don't understand the foundation, then how do you feel qualified to make a single comment on this or any topic.? The Bible is crammed full of backstories but the average shallow reader has zero clues as they zip by them. Why doesn't the Bible tell us in detail what "the rest of the story" is?? The original audience knew the backstories so there was no need to rehash well known stories.
Paul is NOT writing to inform us of the 21st century. He was writing to pagans and former pagans of the 1st century, pagans whose culture and practices we don't even fully know about or understand or the history behind them. Plus these pagans/ex-pagans lived in a very different world than the Ancient Near East.
When Paul is writing to them he does NOT have a need to repeat what they wrote to him about when he's responding to a question or a problem. We can glean what some issues were by Paul's response, but we do NOT have the full picture.
But we can get a fuller picture by referring to the scroll library of the Jews, which the OT writers used as well as the NT writers. A number of these are mentioned by name like Jasher/Jashar(twice) and a number of others by an event.
One of the worst teachings I have ever heard. The logic he bases his conclusions are weak and come from no reasoning other than a bias of what he perceives as true. Imagine the idea that because one cannot prophesy to oneself is proof that this is referring to a church meeting? This is shockingly bad logic.
Paul was never in Corinth, he certainly never was in Athens, no Athenian philosopher mentions his name. So much for the biblical claims that "all Athenian philosophers gave Paul their attention for his wise words." In fact, this man who performed miracles and supposedly travelled the empire, has absolutely no evidence for it except from the bible. "Corinthians" is filled with Christian interpolations, and in no way can be considered history. Nothing in Paul's life is corroborated by history. Paul supposedly converted the procurator of Cypress, yet his palace has a pagan shrine and no evidence of early Christianity. Pompeii and Herculaneum have not one Christian artifact, 79CE. Despite the bible's claim that by 64CE Christianity crossed the entire empire. The lie is exposed.
pbbbt, yeah......ok.
Rubbish 🗑!
@@subatomic10 Only the Bible says Paul was in Corinth and Athens. We know what the Bible is worth.
@Itsatz0 Go study the 70 week prophecy , Isaiah 53 , Job's insights into what scientists have recently found out, Ezekiels Tyre causeway prophecy, Daniels Babylonian , Medes / Persian , Greek , Rome prophetic fulfilment , then come back and argue
@@subatomic10 I see, you can't come up with any Greek philosophers who mention Paul being in Athens. So you pull prophesies out of your hat. Amazing how much like monkeys people can be.