new thread
As the issue seems to be coming up a lot, (I noticed a post by someone who apparently cut his hair because of the infamous 1 Corinthians 11:10), I thought I'd post this article. Some of you have probably seen it before but nevertheless:
SHOULD MEN HAVE LONG HAIR?
'Many Christians claim that God does not want men to have long hair. They are wrong: God loves long-haired men.
According to God's law, a man must not cut the hair at the sides of his head and he must not clip the edges of his beard. (Leviticus 19:27) If a man is a NazariteÑone who is specially dedicated to God - he must not cut his hair at all. (Numbers 6:5)
The Bible tells us that Absalom, king David's son, was the most handsome man in all Israel: he cut his hair only once a year. (2 Samuel 14:25)
The apostle Paul, however, wrote: "Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him?" (l Corinthians 11:14). But nature teaches us nothing of the sort. Perhaps Paul, who was bald, was jealous of men who had long hair. He had also repudiated God's law, so he felt free to invent laws of his own. (Galatians 2:16, etc.)
Jesus, however, did not repudiate God's law. "Do not think that I came to abolish the law or the prophets... For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass away until all is accomplished" (Matthew 5:17-18).
We can therefore safely conclude, on biblical evidence, that Jesus, too, had long hair and a long beard, just as orthodox Jews have to this very day. So fellows, if you fear God, love Jesus, and want to be the most handsome men in the land, get your hair cut only once a year. And never shave.'
There wasan even better article a few weeks ago whici pointed out that Paul used a diferent word for hair to the normal one, implying that it was fancy hair styles that were wrong, not long hair itself. It is well worth looking back at that post, or in the archive, as it was the best attempt I have seen so far to answer the question of what Paul was trying to say.
My question to any Christian concerned about male long hair. Which of the ten commandments does it contravene?
Answer: None of them, so it can't be wrong for a Christian man to have long hair.
Here's the link. It was posted by nobie in February.
interesting
Hi :-)
Yes, that is my interpertation of it. Investigation into scripture has shown that what Paul was saying is that it is shameful for a man to wear his hair in an effeminate way.
Theron :-)
And today, men tell other men to kill and commit suicide to have a seat by God. Today we have thousands of religions with different point of views and interpretations of the bible that has not been updated in hundreds of years. Most or all of the bible was based on Middle Eastern culture. The Middle Eastern countries have been at war with each other for hundreds of years and it is still going on. The Romans attempted to control all of earth, which is a characteristic of Power and Greed.
I point of some of these things, because I feel to many on here look at the bible, but turn a blind eye on events and history that are in conflict of the subject. No god, if one exists, would accept "Murder, Rape, Power, and Greed".
No man is perfect, but yet the bible was written by them.....back in the stone ages.
The world would not be as we know it today, if everyone had the same "belief" or "value" system. People spoke words, written them down, back then and now. We are taught to be open-minded and make our own assumptions based on the information we attain. The world was smaller then. Yet people were living throughout the world, but the bible was limited to one geograhic area. Not all point of views throughout the world is contained within the bible.
Religion today as was then, is still controversial. Why? Because it is a human trait of ours. We seek out controversy, that is why we have so many rich cultures, and makes us dynamic and unique. People were also slaves back then....Beaten to death by rocks and other over-brutal methods. Hundreds of years ago, knowledge was limited, the world was restricted.
If your going to explore the bible, then at least explore all the history elements and make your own assumptions with all the information, since we have that ability today. It is no longer 105 A.D., but 2004
Agreed - religion has a lot to answer for, but if we are interested in knowing what Paul was trying to convey in his words, then we need to look deeply at the question.
Similarly, there are many ancient texts (and many more modern ones, too) worthy of study.
And at the end of it all, what we decide is our decision.
My understanding as to what the apostile Paul was referring to was men wearing their long hair in a feminine style. You also have to remember that Paul was a Roman citizen and the hair style for male Roman citizens was short at that time, which would also sway his opinion on this issue. Absalom
Hi :-)
As a Christian, I wanted to "weigh" in on this debate. I support men, myself included, having long hair, and wrote one of the posts in the previous thread, explaining why.
I can tell you have put a lot of thought into your post, but from a Christian point of view, it is not a very good argument. Here's why: Christianity was born after Christ died, and those who believe on Jesus, i.e. "Christians" are not under the law, but are justified through faith. So then it is faulty arugment to say we are justified through the law, when scripture tells us we are not. From the Christian point of view you can't then use the law to dispute Paul.
Concerning your quote from Jesus. He did say, as you point out, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled," Matthew 5:17-18. But, your interpertation of this scripture is wrong. If you read the Word you come to understand that what Jesus is saying is that even though there is slavation thru him, his coming has not undone the law. The law is still in effect, and will remain in effect until the end, when God will use it to judge mankind. By that standard the Word tells us all will be guilty -- except those who are saved by through grace because they believe on Jesus. So, the law remains in effect as a part of God's plan to judge those who are unsaved. Here is some scripture that illustrates that point: "Do not frustrate the grace of God; for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain," Galatians 2:21. "Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith," Galatians 5:4-5. "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin," Romans 3:20. "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God," Romans 3:23. "But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, the just shall live by faith," Galatians 3:11 "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law," Romans 3:28.
Theron :-)
I have a Bible with the words of Jesus in red. I don't see any red words in it concerning hair length. Case closed.
Furthermore, most of the people in the last 2000 years who've cared enough what Jesus looked like to spend their time to portray Him have concluded that He probably had long hair.
This religious-angle line is just one more version of the same old very-tired line from the shorthaired crowd that disrespects longhairs. Bigotry is bigotry, no matter how it be clothed.
Hi Bill :-)
I think you misunderstood me. I want to be perfectly clear that I in no way think any Christian person has any authority to pull out Pauls statement and use it as a way to discriminate or judge another person. In fact, in a pervious thread to Stanley I did a pretty good job of explaining why I am confident Christians don't have that right. In this thread I was not debating if Christians have the right to raise that issue, what I was debating were the arugements persented by another poster, who also agrees Christians don't have that right, but as a Christian I did not feel the arguments he presented were a very sound basis for the opion.
Theron :-)
Well, it's actually an article I found on the net, that's why I put it in quotation marks (''). I just wanted to use it to refute Paul's statement, which as others have correctly pointed out is his personal opinion (as opposed to the word of Christ) and made in the light of Roman customs at the time.
A valid point. I should have looked over the article more thoroughly perhaps, but in keeping with the topic what you say really proves that it matters not whether Christians have long, short or no hair.
Here we Go Again........
i'm a christian and never felt it wrong, i think a LOT of people misuerstand that and take it out of context
BTW: i didn't start to grow my hair out untill after i was saved, never really gave it much thought before then after i just had the urge to do so, strange
I agree somewhat with what you say.
That is, Paul contradicts Jesus! And the disciple is not above the master.
In that case, christians should also get circumcised and stop eating pork, because only Paul prohibited these things.
For people who know anything about Christianity, they will know that when Christ came and died on the cross it finished the laws which was set previously. The Bible also teaches that where there is law there is sin. People who try to follow every single detail in the Bible like a set of rules is basicly entering a territory of judgement.
Paul used the word: 'dishonor' not sin.
He also starts that statement with: "Judge for YOURSELVES"...Is not NATURE itself teaching you that if a man
should have tresses, it is a dishonor to him,
yet if a woman should have tresses, it is her glory."
Many women today have very SHORT hair.
Which is unfortunante, because long hair on anyone has much more grace
Religion(s) can be looked-at and analized so many different ways with each claiming that they are the correct Religion. Many Bible passages can be twisted or made (by the reader) to appear to mean what they may want to hear.
God......Nature........whatever is so unique upon our planet and throughout the Universe. Everything is in such perfect balance. There seems to be a reason behind all of this. Hence, if God didn't want Long Hair for we Humans, we wouldn't have it as a "natural" part of us.
(The opinions above reflect ONLY my own thoughts and in no way intends to speak for anybody else.)
How can anyone today claim that the bible represents the word of God anyway?
1) We cannot be sure it was ever correctly documented in the first place and the likes of Paul didn't allow some of their own ideas to creep in? Followers of Christ are but human and the bible documents one case very well were one of them was corrupted.
2) The ancient texts were translated to English by 15th or 16th Century Monks in a time when we had Rulers who were definitely corrupted and wanted a specific slant put on things to suit their own ends. Most of the clergy would have followed their wishes for fear of what would have happened them if they didn't. (Remember how many times Britain Turned Catholic/Protestant during Tudor times?)
If we cannot say what is truely right anymore why use it as a foundation for a belief system? How do we know we have it right? With all the pretenders and liars that have sinced past who can we trust?
Christ gave us an idea and look what we have turned it into? Justification for biggotry, wars and hatred to others - If I was Jesus I would be feeling more than a little miffed that I died for mans sins. Look what good it did!
---------------------------------------------------
Sorry getting a bit deep there, but whatever...
Have you really examined either the Bible or the archaeological support for it?
The Dead Sea scrolls found in 1947 contain portions of scripture and were found to be identical except for some variations in grammar and spelling to the texts we have today. The scrolls were dated to the 2nd century before Jesus.
Have you pondered the prophecies in the Bible? How about the amazing candor of its writers? It stated the earth is a sphere centuries before this was the prevailing idea (Isaiah 40:22)
You obviously don't have faith in it but please be careful about the assumptions you make. I have studied the authenticity of each Bible book and am completely satisfied with my findings. Sir Frederic Kenyon, a noted secular scholar wrote concerning the Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri that "The first and most important conclusion derived from the examination of them is the satisfactory one that they confirm the essential soundness of the existing texts".
I have plenty of reason to doubt -
1) It was Translated to English From Latin - an unspoken language.
I dunno about you but I'm bi-lingual and I see first hand how words get confused by double meanings and semantics every day with two spoken languages. Given that the translation was done from Latin to English in the 15th-16th Century and English itself has changed much since then I have serious reason to doubt the accuracy of its translation.
2) I think you have too much faith in mankind, haven't you noticed how much everyone lies and twists things to their own ends? Just look at your President or Tony Blair - they're supposed to be the most upstanding people in our respective Countries can you trust them? You might have enough faith to believe God is flawless, but if you believe that any man is then you are deluding yourself.
God created this incredible universe. Is it too much to think that he would be able to inspire men to write his thoughts? I think not.
I suggest you open your heart and read the Bible without preconceived ideas about its supposed inaccuracies. There are none.
I have serious doubts to people's ability to determine there own thoughs from others. The dozens of unquestioning parishioners in churches every sunday who unlike yourself believe without question exactly what they are told (be it right or wrong) are a shining example of mans inability to come to his own conclusions.
I've tried, though I find it uninspiring and fruitless. I wish I could get the same buzz from it as others, but I've been unable to draw any hope or sense of wellbeing from the bible since I was 12 years old.
Instead I've become a proactive person - if something is wrong in my life I take action to fix it, if a friend needs help I help them, I see no point in seeking guidance from higher powers when the answers are all around me.
No, not in any great detail - but I'm an expert at spotting spin - I work in Marketing - I know not to trust what I read without hard evidence - the bible offers none - it requires faith - something that "Gods" world has driven from me.
We've already had examples cited in this post where there are possible double meanings to words, - yes they may be close but those analysising these scriptures often fail to consider these other possibilities.
Yeah Amazing, but that sounds more like clairvoyancy, something I have an easier time accepting than that God built the Universe in 6 days and put his feet up on Sunday.
No I don't have faith, and my conclusions are based on scepticism, unlike yours which are based on faith. Prove to me that God exists and the bible is genuinely his word, then I'm a convert.
Unfortunetly, the Church and practically every major belief structure has hidden from scientific scrutiny by demanding Faith - The ultimate get out clause.
But don't let my absence of faith invalidate my arguement - look at the world... its corrupted and flawed, there are few genuinely good people in it. Has any religion really helped? If Christ really did die for our sins would he really be happy with the results?
Religion is the single biggest cause of hatred and prejudice on this planet, why? Because people took an excellent set of values and decided to impose them (together with some of their own) on everyone else.
Like I said - If I were Jesus - I'd be really pissed that I died for this lot! At least by having no faith - I do not prejudge others for their own, a flaw all to common in Christians, Muslims and Jews.
Ok, obviously we're not getting anywhere in this discussion. At least it has been civil and I appreciate your comments.
I must address your comment:
"Yeah Amazing, but that sounds more like clairvoyancy, something I have an easier time accepting than that God built the Universe in 6 days and put his feet up on Sunday."
I certainly don't believe the Universe was created in 6 days. This is NOT biblical. I believe the Universe was created about 15 billion years ago and from the evidence, the Earth around 4.3 billion years ago.
The Creative Days of Genesis have nothing to do with the creation of the Universe. Genesis 1:1 states that somewhere in the ancient past God created the Universe. The Creative Days deal with how life was created here on this planet. These were NOT literal 24 hour days but instead marked aeons of time - creative epochs. The apostle Paul wrote that we are still in the 7th Creative rest day so obviously it could not be a 24 hour day.
It is difficult to argue any topic with no supported facts. That is the nature. Sorted and I have almost an identical point of view of this subject matter. Each and every day we learn more and more about what was possible thousands of years ago with technology we have today and technology we will have in the future. Up until a few months ago, what many believed to be the story of Noahs Ark, was blown out of porportion. The Discovery Channel is a great source for knowledge, using exisiting technologiesand the vast amount statistics and resources available today.
What your missing from Sorted is that you have no choice but to use faith in your argument. You certainly are not using any scientific evidence as support for your argument. Without it, all you have is faith. You depend on believing and following what was written thousands of years ago by MAN. You mention scholars to back up your statements, while I can mention scholars that do not support your scholars.
What do suppose was going on around the rest of the world back in those times? Do you have any clue? You will not find it in any bible, thats for sure. People were unable to "explore" the world back then and to them the world was a much smaller place. I'm not argueing that someone or several people may not have believe the world was a sphere as I am sure others may have believed it was square, triangle, flat, but they could NOT prove it.
I cannot believe that the words of men thousands of years ago is not under any scrupitiny.
It is a possibility that a man named Jesus was sent to that part of the world, because that part of the world was in need of someone to save them. The problems then (Which has not changed much for the better since then): Wars, Slaves, Power, Greed
Since the bible is only so big, not everyone's words have been heard. The scriptures written within may been controlled, possibly even scripted by some. It may have been edited, modified by those in power during different periods of time. There still could be other original scriptures lost somewhere between 2 thousand years ago and today. Not one person can be certain of unfound items.
You have already made up your mind and wish to keep it closed. I say closed, because you do not wish to explore this in whole, but only in a religious format, from religious scholars.
Maybe there were no 24 hours a day back then because they did not have the ability to measure time then. They did not have the ability to do many things that we can do today. They never dreamed of ever going to the moon then either.
If your faith allows you to be happy and secure with yourself, then that is all that matters. There are those that wish to use science, and all oter resources available today to form their own assumptions and beliefs.
1 Corinthians 2:14:
"But a physical man does not receive the things of the spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot get to know them, because they are examined spiritually."
You are such a man and that of course is your right.
I politely note that you are being condescending to me to state that others such as yourself look to science. I also am a student of science. My faith is affirmed by science. The more we learn, the more we realize how complex the universe really is.
I don't just limit myself to Science, but all the technological tools available to us today.
Sorry Stan, but telling me that your a student of Science does not validate your argument that your faith is affirmed by Science. What scientific evidence has been discovered that would have you believe that your religion is affirmed by Science?
Hi :-)
I realize you are not talking to me in this post, but why would you think that someone who pursued this topic from faith or a religious format had a closed mind? Christians were not born saved. At some point in their life the vast majority of them made a decision to choose faith over the wisdom of mankind. Before I was saved I saw things very much in the way you do now, and explored the same line of thinking, and know of many other Christians who did, also. How then can you say that just because someone operates from a faith point of view that they have not considered other points of view, and have a closed mind. As a person I've walked on both sides of the issue during my lifetime, have you?
Theron :-)
Hi,
Yes, I have walked both sides. Like most folks raised by parents, I was "forced" to go to church and Sunday school. You say you are "saved". Saved by or from what? Other saved christians whom I known were saved from killing themselves with booze, drugs and or violence, and marriage. Where did I get "closed-minded" from. Well first of all, my response was with Stanley's post to be specific. Stanley likes to quote scriptures from the bible and use religious scholars to support his statements and bring stability with his beliefs and religion. He has shown on this board that he is totally faithful to his religion to the point that he cut his hair for it. This indicates to me that he is a true "follower" and rather follow than "lead". He adheres to and follows all rules, whether written or spoken, without questioning it. This conclusion was based on him cutting his hair related to his religious beliefs. Yet he still states that he likes long/longish hair but would rather please others rather than himself.
Here is my favorite example of all: The Adam and Eve story. Science evidence indicates a different theory. How does anyone know for sure that these two were the only 2 living human beings on this very large planet during their alleged time period? How could they know? They certainly could not have traveled the entire planet to find out, now could they? Evidence today suggests this to be un-true. Why? Well show me a couple of caucasions that produce an African-Nigro child, or the other way around, how about any ethnic group? Today's science is evidence alone that suggests this to be a tale. 2000 years ago, we did not possess the technology to prove what is fact and what is fiction and it was very easy to tell stories and have others believe in it. I could sit here for the rest of my life picking the bible apart. Everything is subjected to be questioned. I mean everything. Just because someone wrote a scripture in the bible, does not make it so, true, or the way of life. It is subject to be questioned for its validity and value by everyone.
If you want the honest truth fom me on this subject: Yes I have read a version of an entire bible and the whole book is in question, from the integrity of the authors, founders, translaters, editors and publishers to why and who decided to stop writing these scriptures. For all I know, Jesus himself could be someone no different, than someone defined as a religious lunatic today. Here is a food for thought for you Theron: Today, if a person says he was spoken to by God, society locks them up. People though that earthquakes and storms were a sign of God 2000 years ago and were not advanced enough to know anything else. But we are to believe everything what they wrote and spoke about? Yeah... right. There is a reason why the majority of this history is NOT taught in any History class of any public school or University. Today the human race is far more advanced than our race 2000 years ago. Most people are willing to believe anything to make peace for why we are here, what is our purpose, how did I get here, etc... and needs to find a faith to help them live their years on this planet.
Hi :-)
Thanks for answering the question. We seem to have very different opinions about this matter, and I am comfortable with that because one truly beautiful aspect of life is we all get to make our own decisioins and choices.
Theron
Wow!
Well then, I can tell you that I am cool with that. I can tend to get carried away on this topic an my apologies if any offense was taken.
Hi :-)
I'm really saddened to see that the debate about Paul's statement about long hair, and the fact that some Christians use it as a way to judge others who have long hair (which I firmly believe is wrong of them to do) has turned into a debate about the value of Christianity itself. But I want to be clear about this, as a Christian I believe God gave us all free will, so then even though it saddens me to learn you have no faith, I respect your right to make a decision different than mine.
Theron :-)
Thanks Theron, I too respect your right, and that of others to keep their own faith - though I wouldn't feel sad for me as I don't feel I'm missing out on anything as a result.
I think this topic has a tendancy to boil over. I'm as guilty as anyone. But its just that the more I see and hear of the world, the more I start to realise that its Religion what is used as justification for so much of what is wrong in the world. Bigotry hatred, racism, wars, terrorism.
This doesn't mean I think that religion is inherently bad - its just I beleive its widely used for the wrong reasons. This is what gets my back up, especially when I see decent people like Stanley unable to acheive personal goals because of it.
Anyway... Peace.
Hi Sorted :-)
I don't feel sad for you :-) What I felt sad about is that the discussion about Paul and his statement about hair turned into a debate about the value of faith, itself.
One point you and I agree on: Religion is misused a lot to judge and oppress others, and this is wrong. As a Christian I strongly feel that a great deal of harm is done, often, in organized religion of today. That is why, as a Christian, I don't belong to any organized group. I've always felt our walk with Christ was a personal one, and that one could follow that path, and also meet with fellow Christians, without taking on membership of one group, i.e., Catholic, Lutheran, Baptist, etc. Organized religion of today has vast differences between how they believe, and they ask "members" to subscribe to their way of thinking, and to incorporate that into their belief system, and I refer to that as "false religion," and actually believe that most of the organized groups today practice false religion. What I use as my guide is the Bible, as inspired by God, and I don't see why any Christian needs more than that. They will tell you they do because of fellowship. And I agree fellowship is a good thing, but one can have fellowship with fellow Christians without joining an organized religion, and incorporating their belief system into the mix of things.
Theron :-)
i agree there, most religion is corrupt, but just remember religion was created by man, NOT God
most of the time it's based on truth but people pervert it
religion is mans intermptation of God and a good amount of the time it is wrong (and no amount of rules have been made up by PEOPLE as the catholic church has)
i am a Christian in the sense that i follow the teachings of Jesus, i am however not overly concerned with church rules and regulations because most of them were man made
i Believe in God and i believe that Jesus was the greatest teacher who ever lived and did die for me
HOWEVER i also believe that what a LOT of people pass off today as his teachings are just made up
like how many hate groups have used his message as an excuse?
i mean come on, Jesus taught about LOVE and PEACE
theres no way that can be mistaken as a hate message unless someone twists and perverts it
his teachings were VERY simple, its people that have made them complicated
if you don't agree with that than that's fine too, i respect whatever people choose to believe in as thats their right
by the way to StanleyBey: where is that thing about the earth being a sphere in the Bible?
i'm not trying to be a jerk i'm just curious which scripture says that (i'd be interested in checking that out) if you could give me a quick email about where that came from i'd be very thankfull :-)
"Judge for YOURSELVES"...Is not NATURE itself teaching you..."
A few points:
1. "JUDGE FOR YOUSELEVES" Obviously, this meant that the people could
look around and SEE for themselves the 'reasons' for NOT having long tresses.
Maybe it had something to do with the LIFESTYLES of those who did
have long hair?
2. "IS NOT NATURE ITSELF TEACHING..."
I have always thought that this refers to two things:
1. That when men worked hard (in those days) hair was a hinderance.
2. 'Nature' indicated that men were prone to balding, so that perhaps
having one's hair was not natural.
I would alsolike to point out that Paul NEVER said that GOD had said this.
He, specifically avoided that and appealed only to Nature.
Lastly, LONG HAIR IS SOMETHING THAT IS AS NATRUAL as can be..
Don't cut it and let NATURE take its course!
Thats the beauty of this book, it depends on which sections you choose to instill into your belief system and which sections you wish to ignore. I mean its a pretty fat book, loaded with many point of views. You choose.
Hi :-)
I have to give you this, you are persistant in your arguments. But right now I feel we should all follow the advise of Dolly Parton in the movie Steel Magnolias, and: "Let's go bang some hair."
Theron :-)
As written by man.
Was it God's fingers who recorded His law? Or was it man? Dare I speculate that the prophets could have made mistakes in their recordings? OR EVEN WORSE- That prejudice enticed them to write more than what God intended?
Perhaps it wasn't the authors fault- but the translators!
Translators were not called of God, but took liberty upon themselves to take original script and put it into another language, and whether by error or intention... A change was made.
I believe human error is the cause of all these Bible confusions-
1. Paul's Vision
Acts 9:7 "And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man."
Acts 22:9 "And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me."
2. Judas' Death
Matt. 27:5 "And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself."
Acts 1:18 "Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst sunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out."
3. The order of Jesus's temptaions (which wouldn't be an error if they stated it as being 3 things that happened; but the Bible specifically states one happened after another in a specific order.)
Matt. 4:1-11 (Script too long.... look for yourself!)
Luke 4:1-13 (Ditto)
And of course various other topics (for the fun of it search out whether works or faith saves a man!)
For the slow children in the back of the room- the little bits of confusing and conflicting information might as well be forgotten- especially Paul's one-man-march against good hairdos.
Check out this one.
http://JesusChrist.knows.it
It pointed out that Paul never knew Jesus, that there were several groups of Christianity going on at the time and that the ones in Jerusalem were the people who DID know Jesus. They did not agree with Paul on many issues. Paul travelled elsewhere and prostletized, and much of the New Testament is the diary of his travels. His travels took him to Rome, setting the seeds for his version of the religion to ultimately mutate into the state religion of Rome.
The program pointed out that it is Paul's writings of his preachings to various cities, that underlie the biblical underpinnings for anti-semitism and anti-gay stances of some Christians. Hitler's crowd justified their actions with the biblical passages of Paul. The program did not mention it, but Paul of course also authored the line that contains the bigotry against longhairs.
One thing the program did point out, with photos of artwork and also by speaking of such, was that Paul was bald. Thus, the passage in Corinthians stacks up as nothing more than a bigot with hair-loss anxiety to me.
Jesus said to toss out the "law" of the Old Testament and to listen to Him. Paul, who never knew Jesus, set out to replace the old "law" with another one, but Jesus had said to listen to Him. As I said before, there are no words in red in MY Bible that condemn longhairs.
There are none that condemn Jews or gay people either.
So which of these men are YOU going to believe, Jesus or Paul? To me, it isn't even a contest....
Bill, you show by your statements that you do not accept 2 Timothy 3:16 where it states that ALL scripture is inspired of God. This obviously includes Paul's writings.
That is your right.
There are those of us who do accept this scripture and see absolutely no contradictions between Jesus and what Paul was inspired to write.
'Tain't in red.
You're apparently only accepting Jesus' quoted sayings as inspired.
One theme can be found throughout all 66 inspired books.
No, it sure isn't, but Matthew 16:19 is in red, and this is where Jesus gives Peter and the other apostles the keys of the kingdom. "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." The expressions to bind or loose were commin in Jewish legal phraseology, meaning to delcare forbidden or to declared allowed. So then Jesus, Himself, gave the apostles the authority to allow or forbid.
Theron
It would seem to be rather poor inspiration from all the contradictions and other problems it contains. You might want to know more about it if you are going to base your life (and hair) on it. Check the link when you have a little time to read.
You might also check these links and see if you have the answers:
http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.shtml
http://mindprod.com/noah.html
On the contrary THERE ARE NO CONTRADICTIONS.
You just don't get it, do you? You can make your claims, on and on and you just have no understanding.
You go so far as to claim I haven't even examined the Bible. I have not only read the Bible. I have analyzed each and every verse. My personal copy has notes on almost every page.
Don't blame me, I didn't write it.
If you have answers for all of these contradictions then by all means make them known to the people who have these lists as I'm sure that they would be MORE than intrested to know that the incorrect stuff they found in the bible is somehow wrong. Many of the people who know about these problems are Christian biblical scholars.
You will make biblical history and possibly end much of the squabbling between denominations.
I can give you a paragraph of an author who you don't know to read and memorize. After you do it I can ask if you know what happened in the rest of the book that the paragraph came from and other questions about the author himself and why he wrote the book. With only a paragraph to read I doubt very much if you can answer my questions without making up a bunch of stuff.
Go ahead, take a little time to go through those links I provided. It won't hurt you and if you are right it won't cause to you stray away from your religion one bit.
I suspect that even if you aren't right you still won't want to stray away from your religion. So what's the harm in boning up on the bible?
I realise this post is not directed to me but I do have to challenge this statement:
I have studied the New Testament and I cannot agree with that. Just for starters, Tarikh posted a link to a site which outlines some of these contradictions. But aside from contradictions, I have cross referenced all of the major editions of the New Testament, and there are serious discrepancies in the translations (as other posters have already pointed out). For example, citing the beginning of Acts about Judas' fate, only Tyndale's Bible states that Judas was hanged. This is not in any of the editions based on Tischendorf's translation from the Greek or those based on the Authorised version (using Erasmus of Rotterdam and encompasing Luther's).
Okay, that's just one example. so what? Well, one can find many such deviances and, so I am told by scholars of the Old Testament, many there also. Furthermore, there is the issue of the Sinai Codex with which most board members probably will not be familiar. ALL translations of the New Testament made in the last, I think 1500 years were made from one original manuscript, which scholars call the Vatican Codex (it is kept in the Vatican's archives). There is a second manuscript in existence, sitting in the Museum of London, called the Sinai Codex. Although in terms of authenticity and validity it cannot be refuted, it is not used as a basis of translation of the New Testament because it differs too much from the Vatican Codex! In fact, the Vatican has forbidden its use for precisely that reason.
There are also issues in translation of the ancient texts. A Hebrew scholar has recently stated that the famous "camel through the eye of the needle" passage should read "camel through a gate", 'gate' referring to a particular type of small gate used in the fortified walls of the Hebrew cities. A misunderstanding over one word. Okay, so that doesn't change the meaning of the text but one cannot completely rule out the possible existence of errors that do.
Of course you can rightly argue that it is the overall message of the Bible which is the basis of your faith, therefore all of this word picking does not matter in the slightest. But you don't seem to be doing that. I think when someone (anyone) quotes only a single passage of the Bible to justify their stance, the argument becomes rather shaky. Whether or not one believes that the Bible was inspired by God or not, it certainly is not free of errors.
That was part of the reason that I posted the "christianity and long hair" article. Whilst Paul appears to say "long hair is wrong", there are several other biblical passages which say "long hair is right"!
Stanley, are you familiar with Hans Kung? He is one of the greatest theologians of the 20th century and he presents a Christianity which all denominations would be wise to accept for it does away with all of the myths that have crept into the religion, yet it is not 'heretical'.
I welcome any input and apologise again for jumping in on the discussion between yourself and Hair Religion.
His death is not a problem. Quite often more than one Bible writer will bring out different details about an account.
For example in one account 2 blind men are said to approach Jesus; another account only mentions 1. Instead of immediately jumping to the conclusion that there is a contradiction, it is better to think of it from 2 perspectives. In this case, no doubt one of men took the lead in speaking, that could have been reason that only he was highlighted in one account.
Regarding Judas. I agree with the commentators that reason that Judas did attempt to hang himself. He did so over a cliff. Either the rope or the branch could have broken causing him to plummet down the cliff. He then easily could have hit a sharp protrusion causing his insides to burst.
I am not going to address all of these supposed contradictions. I have done personal study on the vast majority of them but this is not the board for this. I also feel that many here lack faith and it does no good to discuss this further.
Quite right. I just wanted to point it out. Peace!
I also remember Jesus befriending a prostitute somewhere in the bible and saying she had a better chance of getting into heaven than some of his "so called" followers.
It isn't by what man says, it isn't by what the bible says. It's what is in your heart. It has nothing to do with what you look like. If you do something that you know in your heart is wrong, it's a sin.
My grandmother, who was/is a "Sunday school teacher," told me: You don't have to read the bible, you don't have to go to church. The truth, and god, is in your heart. You know what is right and wrong. You may need to sin, but if it is for the greater good (for others, not yourself), god will forgive. You trust what is in your heart, and you will not falter.
You can have your own indulgenses. That is human. God and Jesus know this. As long as you know that you are not commiting attrocities against god, who cares what length of hair you have? Do you think god is looking down at long hairs and saying "where did I go wrong?!" I don't think so.
Long hair hurts no one. It doesn't cause anyone to commit a sin. It doesn't kill anyone.
It is actually the way god intended. If he/she meant for men to have short hair, men's hair wouldn't grow past a certain length. Men's hair length being short is caused by man. Not god, not the bible.
The prejudice against long hair is caused by man. Not god, not the bible. Anyone who says you HAVE to have short hair is actually saying god is wrong, because god wouldn't have let your hair grow beyond a certain point if he didn't want long haired men.
God didn't create scissors. Man did.
I will not quote scriptures, because I read the bible twice, and that was years ago. I refuse to read a book more than twice, no matter how good it is.
I will never cut my hair to please some other person. I learned long ago that people who cut other people down, for whatever reason, are not happy with themselves. They choose to lash out at others to make themselves feel better. THAT is wrong. THAT is a sin. If someone else lashes out at me, it IS NOT my fault. I should not feel bad about myself because of it, and I should not find fault in that person. I should not look down on any other person. I may pity them, but I don't judge them. That is for god to decide.
In the end, all those people are on their own, as I am. You have to be happy with yourself. If you aren't happy with yourself, how can you make others happy? Is that not what is intended for us? True happiness? Is god not a loving god? He/she gave his/her only son to die for our sins so we would be happy, and make OUR OWN choices...
If you spend your entire life worrying about what others think, and fearing god and god's wrath, you are not living. And that's why we're here: To live, love, learn, and be happy. We should rejoice in our differences, and live to make ourselves happy. Only then will we find heaven on earth.
This entire discussion has gotten off of the topic of long hair and the Bible, to the veracity of scripture.
Point is, nobody's mind is going to be changed. The skeptics will always be skeptical and the believers will alwasy believe. If either of these points of view change, it is because of an understanding that an individual has come to him(or her)self, not because somebody debated well enough to convince them.
Might want to add the whole Corinthians passage to the RAQ. . . . .
The veracity of entire scriptures in general is certainly off topic, I'd agree. Whether Paul is a false prophet or not is "on topic" as I see it, however, because Paul penned purported "inspired works" which are derogatory of longhaired men.