Bible Paul against long hair

[mike thomas]

Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

from I Corinthians 11:14

If it is shameful for a man to wear his hair long, surely this means that Jesus wore his short? It seems from history that the church thought very different on the subject, judging by the many paintings and statues.

Any comments welcome.

[BienvenuJDC]

Most paintings of Jesus was from a culture that was dated over one thousand years later. I would say that the length of hair for a man was based on cultural meaning at that time and place. Therefore, Jesus would "probably" have had short hair to respect the culture of the time. AND IMHO...one should respect the cultural expectations of where/whenever they are, as long as they don't defy other moral codes that God has set forth.

[prendrelemick]

Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?



Any comments welcome.


That is probably the most ridiculous utterence in the entire Bible, nature teaches us nothing of the sort. It is purely a contemporary Roman view of manliness.

You can take the man out of Rome, but you can't take Rome out of the man.

[YesNo]

You can take the man out of Rome, but you can't take Rome out of the man.
Nice. :)

I had to look this up, since I'm not familiar with the text. Here are a list of sources: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/1corinthians.html

I think the part about women and men in the few verses preceding it may cause more controversy than the one you mentioned.

[mike thomas]

Most paintings of Jesus was from a culture that was dated over one thousand years later. I would say that the length of hair for a man was based on cultural meaning at that time and place. Therefore, Jesus would "probably" have had short hair to respect the culture of the time. AND IMHO...one should respect the cultural expectations of where/whenever they are, as long as they don't defy other moral codes that God has set forth.

You say "as long as they don't defy other moral codes that God has set forth."

but surely wasn't long hair God's preference? and maybe even code? Therefore the son of the main God would have long hair in accordance with the father's preferences? So this must mean that Paul was seriously in error.

[mike thomas]

Nice. :)

I had to look this up, since I'm not familiar with the text. Here are a list of sources: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/1corinthians.html

I think the part about women and men in the few verses preceding it may cause more controversy than the one you mentioned.


Yes, Paul seems against almost everything, and he liketh not women nor unmarried sex.

[mike thomas]

For, lo, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and no razor shall come on his head: for the child shall be a Nazarite unto God from the womb: .. . . . . .

Ref Samson, Judges 13:5

[MarkBastable]

Paul was writing some time after the death of Christ.

And Paul had a very different cultural background to Christ.

And Paul had his own agenda that was often in conflict with other factions in the early Christian Church, so there's no reason to think he spoke for an entire neo-Christian culture.

On top of which, if God's up there making rules, I'd like to think he has more pressing concerns than to worry about shifts in tonsorial fashion.

[BienvenuJDC]

You say "as long as they don't defy other moral codes that God has set forth."

but surely wasn't long hair God's preference? and maybe even code? Therefore the son of the main God would have long hair in accordance with the father's preferences? So this must mean that Paul was seriously in error.

Why do you say that long hair was God's preference? Just because He set forth certain rules for a Nazerite vow doesn't mean that it applied to all people everywhere.

[BienvenuJDC]

Paul was writing some time after the death of Christ.

And Paul had a very different cultural background to Christ.

And Paul had his own agenda that was often in conflict with other factions in the early Christian Church, so there's no reason to think he spoke for an entire neo-Christian culture.

On top of which, if God's up there making rules, I'd like to think he has more pressing concerns than to worry about shifts in tonsorial fashion.

Christ was crucified AD 29, and Paul had been converted, ministered, and was martyred before AD 69. I don't know where you get your information, but it's not accurate.

[MarkBastable]

Christ was crucified AD 29, and Paul had been converted, ministered, and was martyred before AD 69. I don't know where you get your information, but it's not accurate.

I'd say forty years was some time. Why do you constantly adopt the default position that no one knows anything about anything that you know something about?

[BienvenuJDC]

Maybe it has something to do with the topic at hand, and your comments?
Please tell me what other factions that Paul was at odds with? Since he was speaking by the authority given to him by Christ, I would say that gives validity to his writings. Christianity is based much on his writings, and they have no conflict with the other Biblical writings. Any writings that post date the Bible do not have precedent over the Bible. True Christianity is set by the authority of the Scriptures.

[DanielBenoit]

Any writings that post date the Bible do not have precedent over the Bible. True Christianity is set by the authority of the Scriptures.

That's weird because the earliest gospel, which most scholars agree on as Mark, was most likely written after the fall of the Second Temple in 70 AD: A significant forty year difference.

Others like John are even more belated, dating around 90 or 100 AD; one would think that if all of these men had lived together with Christ they would be both around the same age and that they would choose to write about their Messiah a little sooner than forty to seventy years later, a time span which is usually longer than people lived in those days.

Due to all of the various and contradictory accounts of Christ and his opinions (and what of the non-canonical gospels?) that we can hardly call much in the New Testament as authoritive on the real historical Christ, if there was one.

[BienvenuJDC]

That's weird because the earliest gospel, which most scholars agree on as Mark, was most likely written after the fall of the Second Temple in 70 AD: A significant forty year difference.

Others like John are even more belated, dating around 90 or 100 AD; one would think that if all of these men had lived together with Christ they would be both around the same age and that they would choose to write about their Messiah a little sooner than forty to seventy years later, a time span which is usually longer than people lived in those days.

Due to all of the various and contradictory accounts of Christ and his opinions (and what of the non-canonical gospels?) that we can hardly call much in the New Testament as authoritive on the real historical Christ, if there was one.


Ok....the four gospel accounts were of course written after Christ. They were written within the first century along with the Pauline epistles, Peter's epistles, and even the latest book of the New Testament (Revelation) which was probably written about AD 96. All of these books are considered part of the Bible, and there is not conflict between any of these books. None of the New Testament writings were written during Christ's life an ministry here on this earth. I'm confused as to why you say that there are contradictions in the gospel accounts and other New Testament writings. If John wrote his last books by AD 100, if he was born about the same time that Jesus would have been born, he could have been close to 100. That is possible. Some of the other writers may have been born 20 years after Christ. There's no problems that I see with this.

[MarkBastable]

Maybe it has something to do with the topic at hand, and your comments?
Please tell me what other factions that Paul was at odds with?

The early Christian Church - or cult, as it was then - was essentially split in to two groups - those who wanted to keep it to the Jews in the Holy Land, and those who wanted to take it to the Gentiles, all round the Mediterranean. Paul's travels were a huge and ultimately successful propaganda effort.


Since he was speaking by the authority given to him by Christ, I would say that gives validity to his writings.

As he never met Jesus, that position is a matter of faith rather than a matter of fact.


Christianity is based much on his writings, and they have no conflict with the other Biblical writings. Any writings that post date the Bible do not have precedent over the Bible. True Christianity is set by the authority of the Scriptures.

Well, yes - that's self-fulfilling. The Bible is comprised of the books chosen by the faction that eventually became identified with Christianity - so of course there's little conflict with Paul's writing.

If you want my opinion - and I don't suppose you do - I'd say that Paul was more important than Jesus in shaping the central concepts of Christianity. Except the hairstyles, obviously.

[DanielBenoit]

All of these books are considered part of the Bible, and there is not conflict between any of these books.

That's if one discounts the Apocrypha and the fact that these few books (out of a whole canon of various early Christian scripture) were chosen by Church officials to support their version of Christianity which wanted to be rid of the Christian Gnostics and others.


None of the New Testament writings were written during Christ's life an ministry here on this earth. I'm confused as to why you say that there are contradictions in the gospel accounts and other New Testament writings.

Biblical scholar Harold Bloom has said that he counts at least seven different versions of Christ in the New Testament and that's leaving out the Apocrypha.

As for the conflicting accounts of Christ:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_john.htm

http://www.crivoice.org/synoptic.html ( a very interesting essay on the history and authorship of the Gospels in general)


If John wrote his last books by AD 100, if he was born about the same time that Jesus would have been born, he could have been close to 100. That is possible. Some of the other writers may have been born 20 years after Christ. There's no problems that I see with this.

Now we come into the question of authorship: The traditional view is that the writer of the Gospel of John was the Apostle John and was attributed by the Church Fathers as to have written his Gospel, Epistles of John and the Book of Revelation. But due to the great differences in vocabulary, grammar and style, even scholars have suggested that there were three different authors of these books. Not only that but Apostle John was reportedly illiterate.

We must also remember that these writers didn't exactly sign their name saying "Revelations, written by Apostle John", these are traditional view of authorship assigned by the church much after they were written; just as how the Torah was traditionally accepted as written entirely by Moses, which is ludicrus due to the fact that it spans generations, has immensely different writing styles throughout and ends after he died.

And it is very very unlikely that John, who wrote the Gospels around 90-100 AD would in fact be around ninety to one hundred years old. People aged far quicker back then and an old man would be anybody at forty most likely.

[MarkBastable]

And it is very very unlikely that John, who wrote the Gospels around 90-100 AD would in fact be around ninety to one hundred years old. People aged far quicker back then and an old man would be anybody at forty most likely.


According to Christian tradition, John wrote Revelations on the island of Patmos, in the Aegean. I've been there, and visited the cave in which Christians believe John lived whilst churning out the deathless prose. It's now part of the monastery that houses the monks who run the island.

The cave is at the top of a small mountain that's pretty tough to ascend riding a moped on tarmac roads. I very much doubt a nonagenarian could have made it to the top, even riding a donkey. Circumstantial evidence, certainly, but it all contributes to the conclusion that the guy who wrote the book was not the guy who'd seventy years earlier shot the breeze with the Messiah during road trips around the Holy Land.

[L.M. The Third]

To answer the OP: I think that many misunderstandings arising from Paul's writings are due to taking the writings literally without understanding the culture in which Paul lived. Some groups have taken Paul's comments on women's heads being covered to indicate that women must wear head coverings. I recently read that in Roman society, the higher class women were veiled and the lower class ones, who went unveiled, were often taken advantage of and viewed as prostitutes. So Paul was probably admonishing against an appearance of promiscuity in the church.

Although I don't know the specifics, I assume there may be such a reason behind his comments on men's hair.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0375425012/christianitytoda
This is a book I'm interested in reading for its insights into Paul's reactions to the culture around him, which are often used to make him into a misogynistic authoritarian.

[hellsapoppin]

Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

from I Corinthians 11:14

If it is shameful for a man to wear his hair long, surely this means that Jesus wore his short? It seems from history that the church thought very different on the subject, judging by the many paintings and statues.

Any comments welcome.

But how long is ''long''?

Contemporary Roman emperor Nero had a hair style that looked womanish:

http://www.travelblog.org/Photos/2749796

By contrast, early depictions of Jesus showed him as being black with woolly hair:

http://blackhistoryjohnmoore.bravehost.com/jesus.html

Therefore, we cannot know for certain what is the proper hair length according to Paul.

[mike thomas]

I don't suppose anything much matters anyway, at least according to the book of revelation, because god, in the name of the gentle lamb, will inflict horrendous sufferings upon all buddhists, muslims and followers of anything other than christianity. We must all therefore bend the knee and burn the witch.

:reddevil:

[YesNo]

I don't suppose anything much matters anyway, at least according to the book of revelation, because god, in the name of the gentle lamb, will inflict horrendous sufferings upon all buddhists, muslims and followers of anything other than christianity. We must all therefore bend the knee and burn the witch.

:reddevil:

Don't worry. Santa should arrive soon. :)