Did Paul let his hair grow long?

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by COOPER

LONG hair is not a sin on a man preiod or the NAZERITE VOW IS OF SATAN!

Again your failing to see the point of the Nazarite vow! It was something out of the norm than just regular life. I think the nazarite vow shows even more the fact that hair does matter as it is a outward showing. Though God may use it in different ways to him it does mean something.

Hair in itself means nothing but for the divine purpose God uses it for. In regualr life hair means headship and authority. In a Nazarite vow things are different as one stands before God in a different position of consecration.

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

I think in the end, people just see what they want to see.

Isn't that the way it always is.

[ManOfWord]

2 Questions:

#1 Have you looked at your Greek NT to see how it was worded before translation? (that is my point) I didn't believe it either until I looked for myself in my Nestle/Marshall.

#2 How does NATURE teach us that it is a shame for a man to have long hair?

Men have had long hair far longer in the history of mankind than they have had short hair and that is especially true of the Asian cultures.

[LUKE2447]

Wow, so pagan cultures determine biblical truth. Also it was only long in compared to the butch cuts most women have today. As in time past women let there hair grow very long. Long is not to the shoulders.

[LUKE2447]

Also I find it interesting that not one translation takes your view. Also do you any any scholarship that even would hint to agreeing with this position?

[Baron1710]

I figured I would throw this in over here since we had two threads on the same thing...

Originally Posted by Baron1710

If it was a sin for a man to have long hair there wouldn't be an exception that God put in the Scripture. Every other Scripture in the Bible that talks about hair growing or being cut is contrary to this interpretation of I Cor. Why do we continue to see this ONE verse this way?

We have ONE verse about baptism for the dead, there are more theories on it than you can count but we criticize people who interpret ONE verse to mean we baptize for the dead. We don’t believe baptism is for the dead. Why? Because we have other Scriptures that seem to teach otherwise.

There are numerous verses about Jesus name baptism and we interpret Jesus’ statement Matthew 28 in light of those Scriptures.

Why are we so inconsistent about this passage

Originally Posted by TRFrance

There is no inconsistency at all.
Scripture tells us that both Samuel and Samson (and quite possibly John) were Nazirites from birth, so it would be understood that their long hair was a sign of the Nazirite vow they were under all their lives.

(I don't see where the Bible says Elijah had long hair)

The captured heathen women were to have their hair shaven (and their finger nails & toenails nails clipped off) as part of a purification process before being allowed into the family of Israel.

These were both special situations clearly described by scripture. Neither of those situations/scenarios negate the fact that under God's natural law (1 Cor 11:14), men are expected to have short hair and women to let their hair grow.

Originally Posted by Baron1710

Let's look at this logically, if we interpret that I Cor. 11 is God's law for all time as you claim (natural law more on this later) then why would he give...

1. Specific commands to certain men that they were NEVER to cut their hair.

2. Specific commands to cut certain women’s hair without their consent.

3. Provision for men to let their hair grow, and women to shave their head.

If you read Hobbes, Locke, and Aquinas on natural law you will find that natural law is universal and by definition without exception. Laws even a kid understands, for instance Locke on private property; if I have acquired something by work to create or cultivate it, it belongs to me (private property) and if you take it you have committed a crime. Everyone understands that, even in countries that steal from their citizens the individual responds that’s not fair or just. Why do they respond this way? Natural law.

Now what is it about long hair on men that makes it a sin that is understood by natural law? Society dictates what is acceptable or unacceptable in terms of hair length on the sexes. Native American men wore their hair long, what in nature taught them it was wrong? Much of recent culture has been influenced by Western civilization which has been predominately clean shaven and short hair for men, but this is a cultural thing. The Jews at Jesus time viewed clean shaven short haired men as effeminate.

Originally Posted by TRFrance

Brother, I think the Bible is very clear on this. I dont particularly care what Hobbes, Locke, or Aquinas have to say.

There's no need for us to go round and round on this. So...you work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, and do what seems best to you. And I'll do the same.

(I think you're really overthinking this for some reason, but thats just me.)
Have a good day, sir.

[Tyk]

Originally Posted by ManOfWord

2 Questions:

#1 Have you looked at your Greek NT to see how it was worded before translation? (that is my point) I didn't believe it either until I looked for myself in my Nestle/Marshall.

#2 How does NATURE teach us that it is a shame for a man to have long hair?

Men have had long hair far longer in the history of mankind than they have had short hair and that is especially true of the Asian cultures.

This is why I asked if your first post was correct because it makes more sense, to me anyway.

I've been asked several times "Where in nature does it teach that it is a shame?" (this was asked while just studying that chapter and has had NOTHING to do with any male asking why he can't have long hair. It was a honest and innocent question"). I've only ever heard VERY weak arguments. So weak that when someone asked me, I said I don't know.

So if someone can explain a solid reasoning behind this, verse as it is translated in the bible, i'd appreciate it. Seriously

[COOPER]

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

Again your failing to see the point of the Nazarite vow! It was something out of the norm than just regular life. I think the nazarite vow shows even more the fact that hair does matter as it is a outward showing. Though God may use it in different ways to him it does mean something.

Hair in itself means nothing but for the divine purpose God uses it for. In regualr life hair means headship and authority. In a Nazarite vow things are different as one stands before God in a different position of consecration.

No, you do not get it. God can not accept a sin for a vow. Long hair on a man is not a sin.

It was not abnormal for Absalom to have his long hair.

It is not noted that Absaloms long hair was a shame to him, King David or God.

He did not have the Nazerite vow.

[ManOfWord]

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

Wow, so pagan cultures determine biblical truth. Also it was only long in compared to the butch cuts most women have today. As in time past women let there hair grow very long. Long is not to the shoulders.

Here is what I said regarding culture and something being "shameful" not sin.


"It is the culture which teaches us that something is shameful or not......as long as it is not expressly prohibited in God's word."


Culture does NOT trump God's word. Culture certainly does fill in the blanks many times on what is proper and improper. (not sinful or not)

[COOPER]

Originally Posted by ManOfWord

2 Questions:

#1 Have you looked at your Greek NT to see how it was worded before translation? (that is my point) I didn't believe it either until I looked for myself in my Nestle/Marshall.

#2 How does NATURE teach us that it is a shame for a man to have long hair?

Men have had long hair far longer in the history of mankind than they have had short hair and that is especially true of the Asian cultures.

Native Americans are an example. Even our American fore Fathers had long hair and wigs.