Did Paul let his hair grow long?

[Apocrypha]

Found this a interesting thing in the article about the nazirite vow in Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazarite

--------------------------------

Simeon the Just was opposed to the nazirite vow and ate of the sacrifice offered by a nazirite on only a single occasion. Once a youth with flowing hair came to him and wished to have his head shorn. When asked his motive, the youth replied that he had seen his own face reflected in a spring and it had pleased him so that he feared lest his beauty might become an idol to him. He therefore wished to offer up his hair to God, and Simeon then partook of the sin-offering which he brought.[19]

----------------------------------

This teacher lived about 325 BC. The fact that he didn't have a issue with a man having long hair by itself is interesting. If it was a Old Testament norm to oppose long hair in itself you would think he would call the young man out on it. Food for thought.

[ManOfWord]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

I will go with the consensus of non-biased translators over hundreds of years, rather than something you say you've found "in study".

Your inference that they all got it wrong, but you got it right is not something I'm inclined to believe.

My inference is that clearly the Greek is not as clear as you make it out to be.

There's been homosexuality for thousands of years too, but that doesn't make it the norm, or natural, in God's eyes.

You know that is NOT what I said. I said that culture determines what is and is not shameful as long as it is not contrary to scripture, so your "homosexuality" reference is worthless. Homosexuality is not only "abomination" it perverts God's created order. Cultural long hair, which you know has been practiced by most cultures throughout the world's history is not remotely immoral and has NOT been associated with homosexuality or effeminate men.

The existence of something is not the issue here. The issue is "what is God's desire for his creation"?
I'll just leave it at that.

You didn't bother showing any historical references for this assertion.(Maybe because you dont have any?)

I don't need to show historical references. Unless you have lived in a cave, you know that I'm not in left field on that assertion.

But I think its almost inarguable that in most cultures worldwide, throughout time, women have worn their hair longer than men.

Women have normally had longer hair than men. I don't think that is debatable. However, men have worn their hair longer than most current cultures and once again, it had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with being effeminate.

(Just looking at the many ancient paintings, drawings, sculptures, and other depictions we have from Europe, Asia, the Middle east, and other parts of the world, its not that hard to see, except for those who might not want to.)
This has long been a mark of gender distinction in most cultures. This is what Paul was alluding to when he says even nature teaches us this.

This is your assumption. Nothing more, nothing less.

Unfortunately, you refuse to see this simple fact, in large part because you choose to cling to a badly flawed translation from the Greek, which flies in the face of the long-held basic translation of that verse.

If we choose to use your flawed translation of the scripture, I guess so.

Jesus had long hair?
Not found in scripture. Simply not provable.
Therefore, in my view, it's not worth consideration in this conversation.

It's not worth consideration because you don't seem to have much of a clue when it comes to the Jewish culture of Jesus' day. Jesus having culturally acceptable/expected "long" hair for a rabbi, has no negative connotation whatsoever and I don't know why people are so afraid it.

I will re-state that I am NOT advocating for long hair. I am only stating that the cultural norms of Jesus' day did NOT condemn men for long hair and that Paul was NOT stating something that was against his normal cultural, Jewish distinctive.

[staysharp]

Originally Posted by ManOfWord

I will re-state that I am NOT advocating for long hair. I am only stating that the cultural norms of Jesus' day did NOT condemn men for long hair and that Paul was NOT stating something that was against his normal cultural, Jewish distinctive.

Mow, you're arguing with a brick wall...lol these people just don't get it.

We don't understand 1 Cor. 11 because it violates Judaism and biblical teaching. Just the inference that it's a shame for a man to pray with his head covered is not biblical.

Exodus clearly teaches God ordered the priests to wear turbans while in ministry. The Talmud requires the same...ie skull caps for 4K years and prayer shawls. Paul was a Jew who kept the ordinances, he was clearly saying the opposite of what is understood. Even Jesus wore a prayer shawl, the gospels record the women touching the hem of his shawl...

The fact is we don't have the letter from the Corinthian elders and are reading into a one way conversation...he may have even been quoting their letter to him. He obviously isn't here to tell us.

What is more disturbing is non-biblical standards imposed as biblical. Tradition is one thing, trying to deceive people into making them think its biblical is another.

[ManOfWord]

Originally Posted by staysharp

Mow, you're arguing with a brick wall...lol these people just don't get it.

We don't understand 1 Cor. 11 because it violates Judaism and biblical teaching. Just the inference that it's a shame for a man to pray with his head covered is not biblical.

Exodus clearly teaches God ordered the priests to wear turbans while in ministry. The Talmud requires the same...ie skull caps for 4K years and prayer shawls. Paul was a Jew who kept the ordinances, he was clearly saying the opposite of what is understood. Even Jesus wore a prayer shawl, the gospels record the women touching the hem of his shawl...

The fact is we don't have the letter from the Corinthian elders and are reading into a one way conversation...he may have even been quoting their letter to him. He obviously isn't here to tell us.

What is more disturbing is non-biblical standards imposed as biblical. Tradition is one thing, trying to deceive people into making them think its biblical is another.

I agree! The Jewish men put ON a "hat" to honor God, and Christians take it OFF to honor God. The kippah or Yarmulke is the "Yid Lid" you see most Jewish men wear. Yarmulke means, "In awe of the King." Jews wear it to remember that God is always over them.

I have studied Judaism for over 15 yrs and the ignorance of Jewish custom/culture in Christianity is mind boggling! When I teach my class, "The Undeniable Jewish Roots of Christianity" I can teach it to any culture and they get the context and even receive the revelation of the oneness of God more readily than anything I have ever taught! It is incredible!

Imagine using the Jewishness of the Bible to teach truth! Banish the thought! How dare I!

[staysharp]

Originally Posted by ManOfWord

I agree! The Jewish men put ON a "hat" to honor God, and Christians take it OFF to honor God. The kippah or Yarmulke is the "Yid Lid" you see most Jewish men wear. Yarmulke means, "In awe of the King." Jews wear it to remember that God is always over them.

I have studied Judaism for over 15 yrs and the ignorance of Jewish custom/culture in Christianity is mind boggling! When I teach my class, "The Undeniable Jewish Roots of Christianity" I can teach it to any culture and they get the context and even receive the revelation of the oneness of God more readily than anything I have ever taught! It is incredible!

Imagine using the Jewishness of the Bible to teach truth! Banish the thought! How dare I!

I learned a long time ago, most aren't remotely interested in truth.

Once unbiblical doctrine is deposited offensively while mixed with love, acceptance and validation, people will defend it as part of their identity regardless of biblical correctness.

What UPC is dealing with is a sub-culture run a muck which received love through these doctrines. It only knows how to love those who look like them and don't cut their hair.

This type of love defect is called "tribalistic" and has its roots in pagan tribal cultures.

It's the same love the mafia has...act like the family, don't ask questions and if you try to get out we will kill you.

[freeatlast]

I am trying to find an article i read several years ago on the prayer cloth or hankerchief.

It seems that the word for these cloths' in greek meant what we would refer to as a bandana. These cloths or hankerchiefs were worn by men to hold back their long hair.

Any body ever hear that...I can't find the article.

[staysharp]

Originally Posted by freeatlast

I am trying to find an article i read several years ago on the prayer cloth or hankerchief.

It seems that the word for these cloths' in greek meant what we would refer to as a bandana. These cloths or hankerchiefs were worn by men to hold back their long hair.

Any body ever hear that...I can't find the article.

No, but sounds interesting. lol We do know that long hair was a liability in battle and soldiers were first to cut it. They would grab the long hair and slit the throat.

Once the ladies saw it they liked it and we'll we've been shaving ever since. lol

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

Jesus had long hair?
Not found in scripture. Simply not provable.
Therefore, in my view, it's not worth consideration in this conversation.

Originally Posted by ManOfWord

It's not worth consideration because you don't seem to have much of a clue when it comes to the Jewish culture of Jesus' day. Jesus having culturally acceptable/expected "long" hair for a rabbi, has no negative connotation whatsoever and I don't know why people are so afraid it.

I could make the argument and provide multiple sources of evidence that indicate that long hair was NOT the norm among Jewish men in bible times (apart from the side curls). But that would in fact be a distraction from the main issue here.

What's most important here is that you are teaching something largely based on an erroneous translation of the Greek, one which the overwhelming majority of translators disagree with you on. Even if you were to prove that long hair was the norm, or common, in Jesus day (which is doubtful), it still wouldn't change what Paul plainly taught.

For example, it was common for men to make oaths in bible times, but in the NT it was made plain that anything other than "yea" or "nay" is sin (Matt 5;37, James 5:12). The fact that you could find scriptures or extra-biblical references showing people making oaths in bible times would be irrelevant. If the scriptures at some point declare something to be wrong, then it is. Period.

Paul's words in 1 Cor 11:14-15 are plainly understood by most people who've read them, (whether in English or in the original Greek). So for someone to refer to [unprovable] cultural norms of Jesus' time, in an attempt to undercut the significance of what Paul said, is just wrongheaded.

Anyway.
Good night sir.

[stmatthew]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

YOU may be reading it that way, but Nestles Greek does not word it that way. The exact words used is:

Not nature [her]self teaches you that a man indeed if he wears his hair long it is a dishonour to him

Of course ALL versions of the bible got it wrong when they stated that nature DOES teach you that if a man wears his hair long it is a dishonour to him.

[staysharp]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

I could make the argument and provide multiple sources of evidence that indicate that long hair was NOT the norm among Jewish men in bible times (apart from the side curls). But that would in fact be a distraction from the main issue here.

What's most important here is that you are teaching something largely based on an erroneous translation of the Greek, one which the overwhelming majority of translators disagree with you on. Even if you were to prove that long hair was the norm, or common, in Jesus day (which is doubtful), it still wouldn't change what Paul plainly taught.

For example, it was common for men to make oaths in bible times, but in the NT it was made plain that anything other than "yea" or "nay" is sin (Matt 5;37, James 5:12). The fact that you could find scriptures or extra-biblical references showing people making oaths in bible times would be irrelevant. If the scriptures at some point declare something to be wrong, then it is. Period.

Paul's words in 1 Cor 11:14-15 are plainly understood by most people who've read them, (whether in English or in the original Greek). So for someone to refer to [unprovable] cultural norms of Jesus' time, in an attempt to undercut the significance of what Paul said, is just wrongheaded.

Anyway.
Good night sir.

Whatever happened to "in the mouth of two or three witnesses let every word be established?" If this was the norm...don't you think Paul would have written to the other churches establishing a 'new" norm?

Funny that it's only in one chapter of two letters and also that he was addressing a very specific question of which we know nothing about.

Also, even if it was a new "norm", it still isn't sin. Even if it was a shame and still is today, doesn't make it a sin. It's not listed any where else in scripture and with the same pen Paul told the women it was a shame for them to speak in the church...same pen, same letter, same church. If we're gonna follow one, we should follow both.