new thread
In the NT, Paul addresses the following to the Corynthians.
"1 Corinthians 11:14 - Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? "
Why did he have a grudge against long haired men? Afterall Jesus is reported by some to have long locks of blonde hair. So why would this verse be in the Bible, when the Master himself had long hair?
However some other traditions attribute SHORT hair to Jesus. In this way, Jesus cleared of Paul above affirmation.
Let us remember that after the departure of Jesus there was a dispute between Peter, Paul and Barnabas. And Barnabas and Peter both disagreed with Paul.
Let us not forget also that Paul was a former persecutor of Jesus and most of the things he says in the Bible is not Jesus`s word.
Hm, it is probably cultural. Also, bear in mind that translation can frequently mangle the intended meaning. I'd take it with a huge pinch of salt ;-)
The bible is confusing on this topic, very contradicting. Parts of it encourage men to have long hair and other parts discourage it. Personally, i don't hold any truth to Paul's statement. If it is such a shame for men to have long hair like Paul say's, then why does the image on the Holy Shroud of Turin(the cloth Jesus was wrapped in after his crucifixion)clearly show that Christ had long hair? There is scientific evidence(carbon dating, etc.) that proves the image on the cloth is the actual face and body of Jesus Christ. Not only that, but there have been numerous healings attributed to this sacred cloth when people have touched it. I don't need any more proof than that to counteract and disprove Paul's statement.
No. Radiocarbon dating of the shroud put it at the 1500s or thereabouts. There was recently a documentary on the Discovery channel, or some such, where a theory was suggested that the image on the shroud is actually a form of photograph and that the model being "photographed" was actually a model of Leonardo da Vinci (they also point out that many people believe the Mona Lisa to be a self portrait -- analysis of facial features shows a high correlation between the Mona Lisa and da Vinci).
The earliest textual citation extant regarding the shroud is a statement that it is a fraud, by the way.
There are numerous healing attributed to all kinds of things. I think that says more about the person being healed than about the object, though.
Personally I do not care who stated what in this ancient journal. As far as I know, these were men just like us in a different time with different opinions on certain subjects. Besides, there are way to many translated versions of the bible floating around, which is confusing enough itself.
I wrote on this before, you may want to look it up in the archives.
Anyways, it should be noted that Greek and English are not very compatible languages, and any attempt to translate from one to the other leaves a bitter taste in the translator's mouth :).
What exactly is nature? Not the natural world, for with lions you have males with long hair, females with short. Innate sense of what is right i.e. "that's just not natural"? Um no, because there are many moral people who do not feel any guilt at having long hair. So the only explanation I can think of is societal norm. In Corinth in around 70 A.D. prosititution was rampant, with both men and women selling their bodies. It was the trademark of female prostitutes to shave their heads, and gigalos to grow their hair long and put intricate braids in them.
If I Corinthians was written today it would probably say "Don't wear red fishnets, with high-heels and a tight leather skirt. What are you stupid?!?"
As for the personal attack on the veracity of scripture, feel free do agree or disagree, but I don't 'dis the Koran Tarikh, and I would appreciate the same courtesy towards my faith.
As Always,
That "Ball" Guy
Well said. It is amazing how "fundamentalist" sounding so many fundamentalist-bashers are.
The issues:
1.) St. Paul doesn't clarify how long does hair have to be to be long for men.
2.) St. Paul doesn't state it is wrong that men have long hair. If so, why didn't he just come out and say: "men shall not have long hair"? The definition of the word "shame": a painful EMOTION caused by consciousness of guilt, shortcoming, or impropriety. But where does St. Paul say it is not acceptable for men to have long hair?
3.) What about short hair on women (in the next paragraph)? There are currently more women wearing their hair short than men wearing their hair long.
4.) St. Paul states in 1Corinthians 14:12,26,40 that if such requirements cause strife or division, they are null and void.
5.) Does nature cause men to lose their hair? No!! Its heredity. I don't think Our Lord (who knows all) didn't tell St. Paul to say this!!!
6.) Our Lord is the Sepreme, the only one without sin. St. Paul is a sinner. So listen to what Our lord said in Levitious in the old testament: "If you wish to follow me, grow your hair long and clip it once a year. If you wish to deny yourself and follow me, grow your hair long and never cut it".
I've talked to two Catholic ordained priests, and they tell me it was traditional for men and boys to grow their hair long, and for men to grow long beards. It doesn't sound like long hair on men is wrong to me!!!! Except if your a Fundamentalist (and I don't listen to THEM!!!).
What is it that 'Nature' teaches? If we keep our focus on Nature,
then maybe we get get at the real meaning of this statemment.
I'm sure nature is not really concerned much how we LOOK or dress...or even about our morals...
So, perhaps Paul was referring to the ROLES assigned to men in society?
Long hair may have been a problem to many men(but certainly not to all),
in the course of their daily work.
Most worked very HARD and had difficult labors to perform.
Soldiers, too, would be expected to have short hair, as most Roman soldiers did.
Maybe what Nature taught was that according to the roles assigned to (most) of the males of those days,
it might be best to wear their hair short hair.
Since those days, times have changed and males have worn their hair LONG throughout history.
Even some of the clergy wore their hair long centuries ago.
If someone in a crowd yelled out to ME: "Doth not even Nature itself teach you..."
I was respond by undoing my tail and shouting back: "No, THIS is what Nature teaches me!
And so now do you think I should use some MAN-made scissors to cut it???
Then think again!"
Amen
There is perhaps nothing, and I mean NOTHING as divisive as religion.
So let's drop all the Bible talk before things get carried away.
We all have our opinions, and for the better good of this board we should keep them to ourselves.
Peace!
There are no big attacks in the thread, and I can say that no matter how you explain it, we all agree that Paul's statement doesn't mean it's sinful to have long hair. The statement never mentions it's wrong.
My view is that the Bible isn't only a narrative of ancient people that has to be taken literally all the way. There are many ways to explain it, including the fact that Paul was roman, and all the wealthy romans, like Paul himself was, saw short hair as the division between educated people and barbarians. Romans started the fashion of short hair on men, and the same way Paul did say important things about Jesus, he is human and might have had his own PERSONAL OPINION according to the roman view of long hair.
Very well said about the division between educated people and barbarians. I missed that one. I put in my post without reading any other post first to avoid swaying my view on this issue. Absalom
Some of us believe the Bible is a big collection of fairy tales and pure B.S. As far as I'm concerned, the stories in the Bible are like Jack and the Beanstalk...purely fictional.
The study of tree rings has proven there was no great flood that covered the earth. No society has any written documentation of a guy who healed people or was crucified on a cross, or walked water, or rose from the dead....or any other nonsense of the sort. The Egyptians are known to have kept very detailed and intricate records, yet they never mention Jesus once.
We could start a whole debate on this, and it just isn't worth it. There was no Jesus, no Paul, no Mary, etc. It's a freaking fairy tale as far as I'm concerned, and I would rather just avoid a "holy war" eruptingh on this board because some people insist on bringing religion into it.
Religion belongs in the church and at home and not on this board.
With that being said, I will no longer contribute to this thread. In fact, I won't even bother to read another post in this thread.
These events are as remarkable as they are true.
Some, indeed, are - for example, there is archaelogical evidence to support the story of Soloman marrying pharaoh's daughter. The timeline puts the pharaoh as Ramses II. So, too, there is geological evidence of flooding in the black sea area, to support the story of the great flood. You'll find reference in the stories of Gilgamesh that coincide with this. However, much of the scriptures have been corrupted by propaganda, hearsay and, written long after the supposed events, relying often on third hand recollection. No one would realistically accept that as evidence in the modern world. Also, much of it should be regarded as allegorical. Taken in that context, I can accept it - as the absolute truth, I cannot.
" Some of us believe the Bible is a big collection of fairy tales and pure B.S. As far as I'm concerned, the stories in the Bible are like Jack and the Beanstalk...purely fictional. "
In that case keep yourself from Bible related hair topics and keep your angry self aside.
" The study of tree rings has proven there was no great flood that covered the earth. No society has any written documentation of a guy who healed people or was crucified on a cross, or walked water, or rose from the dead....or any other nonsense of the sort. The Egyptians are known to have kept very detailed and intricate records, yet they never mention Jesus once. "
You obviously need to broaden your sources man, As far as the Egyptians knowing Jesus, well, I don't think they could, since they lived WAY before Jesus. It's like asking the Brits why they didn't write anything about the NY Yankees.
" We could start a whole debate on this, and it just isn't worth it. There was no Jesus, no Paul, no Mary, etc. It's a freaking fairy tale as far as I'm concerned, and I would rather just avoid a "holy war" eruptingh on this board because some people insist on bringing religion into it."
You're the one provoking it. No one forces you to post in this topic, and I demand tolerance from you since nobody attacks you on your beliefs.
Really.... you promise?
My belief is that Paul who was a Roman citizen was referring to male Roman citizens of his time who for the most part had short hair. Short hair on men was the style in Rome at that time in history and was not intended to apply to all men for all time. Samson was a Nazarite man who had very long hair (probably waist length or longer) and there was nothing shameful about him. Many devout Christian men from the Renaissance period had long hair as well. Absalom
1) We can never know whether Paul really did say those words, and whether they were recorded accurately, and have been translated accurately over the years
2) given that all versions of the text are open to a variety of interpretations, we cannot know what Paul was intenting to convey
3) as Paul was only a human being and not the voice of God, he might have been wrong anyway
I would ask anyone seeking to condemn long hair on men through quoting the Bible one question. Which of the ten commandments tells us not to have long hair? Apart, just possibly, from worshipping false images if we were to get too obsessed with our hair, the plain answer is none of them. So, no conflict.
There are so many interpretations...
Maybe Paul meant that nature is bad; that nature misleads people into thinking long hair is a shame.
Others claim that the hair and beard are to remain uncut, that the hair and beard is given by God to sustain higher consciousness.
The web site http://www.sikhpride.com/sikhs.htm explains that in a Sikh dress code.
I can't remember the whole story here so don't bash me for not having the proper sources available.
Female prostitutes of the time round where Paul lived were bald as they shaved their heads. There were priestesses at the time who also ritually shaved their heads and had ritualistic sex with long haired males who paid for the services.
I forget most of the details here, like why it was bad in Paul's eyes for men to have long hair but his birth heritage had a part to play in that.
I think the main point was that women needed long hair to look virginal and feminine (in Pauls eyes) as that was the exact opposite of what they looked like as prostitutes and priestesses of another religion. Men on the other hand had to look very different from the women so would of course need short hair.
I'm not Christian here but I do like reading up on this sort of thing but I know you can't read about this in the Bible. I'd check and all but my book collection is at another address for my moving house. I'll be checking this one out again anyway at some point I'm sure.
Peace.
Oh yes - head dresses were meant to be worm by the females too but you don't see many Christian females wearing them any more either.