New Testament writer had long hair

[Sam]

The early church was made up of Jews --Jews by birth and Jews by conversion. Later Gentiles came in and there was a conference in Jerusalem to decide how much of the Old Covenant law a Gentile would be expected to keep. This is recorded in Acts 15 and happened in the AD 49/50 time period.

Those who came in from a Jewish background kept many of the customs such as sabbath keeping, food laws, and even the Nazirite vow. The Apostle Paul evidently kept the Nazirite vow at times, allowing his hair to grow long (leaving it uncut) for a while then shaving it off and offering the appropriate sacrifice. Apparently he felt OK offering animal sacrifices and keeping some of the old laws because he did not consider them salvational and therefore observing them did not violate what he wrote in Galatians.

And, it seems that keeping the Nazirite vow did not violate what he had written in 1 Corinthians about veils and hair length. Hair length was not an issue in the Old Testament. Both men and women could make a vow and not do the normal hair cutting but let their hair grow for a specific period (even for life) and then shave it off. The passage in 1 Corinthians is difficult to understand and seems to reflect Paul's recommendation to not flaunt liberty if it offended local moral customs.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by erikwebster

Someone please explain passage marker #5. It was New Testament, so was a writer of one of the NT books a rebellious, long haired hippy since he had long hair and the Nazarite vow was not longer in effect (for those who see the law being 100% abolished under grace)? I dare you to take a crack at it and prove this source being off.

I'd love to see how my brothers who like the "old paths" think about Christianity circa 70 AD and before.

I seriously doubt this is an accurate account

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by erikwebster

I imagine it will be silence like usual from the cons when presented something that flips the arguement on them. it will get emotional, they will accuse and say its twisting the wording, or that its somehow a exception of the unbendable rules they make for the sheeple.

I don't see how this does anything against the Cons. Even in this account he was a jew keeping a jewish vow.

However the problem with this is the author claims this man was holy from birth and describes him keeping the vow more like Samson than how the Jews kept it, which was a temporary vow. This account seems kinda of strange. Why is a Christian convert going in to the holy place and pleading in prayer for the sins of the people and not rather preaching the gospel to them so they can have their sins forgiven?

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Amos

I get my doctrine from the Word, not some uninspired historian, Brother.

Paul said it was a shame. That's good enough for me.

Nothing to debate.

I believe the inspired Apostle and reject the uninspired writings of a so-called church father.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

I believe the inspired Apostle and reject the uninspired writings of a so-called church father.

It's just history. But it does reveal how various customs were viewed and dealt with. While these historical documents aren't holy writ....they are vary valuable for supplemental information.

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by erikwebster

well.. we do know there was a female apostle mentioned in scripture.. but thats not a fun one to cover for the "no women preachers" crowd...

http://www.godswordtowomen.org/rissjunia.htm

Romans 16:7 - Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

sorry but there is not proof Junia is a woman or man it's only speculation. Also the term Apostle is messenger. There are only twelve Apostles in the sense of Jesus. As Paul was a messenger so are others.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I don't see how this does anything against the Cons. Even in this account he was a jew keeping a jewish vow.

I don’t see how this goes against any conservative teachings either. But conservatives have a tendency to be rather uncultured and their biblical worldview framed in their own personal interpretation without any outside considerations. Most will instinctively find something like this a threat and argue against it before ever really researching it there by imposing modern thought into the text. If it’s not “Pentecostal” it must be wrong. For example when you hear a man say, “We are BURIED with Jesus in water baptism.” Well….they picture an open grave dug into the ground and a body being completely submerged under the earth. But that’s not what Paul had in mind when he used the term “buried”. Paul would have understood according to the custom of the Jews. Look at Christ’s own burial. Christ’s body was laid out and water was poured over it. Then they dried the body and wrapped it with spices and white linen. Lastly they set it in a tomb. In Paul’s mind water baptism is akin to the washing or cleansing seen in the pouring of water over a dead body….not a symbol of being put into the ground.

You know the old joke,

“Well if the King James Bible was good ‘nough for Paul and Silas, its good ‘nough fer me.”

However the problem with this is the author claims this man was holy from birth and describes him keeping the vow more like Samson than how the Jews kept it, which was a temporary vow. This account seems kinda of strange. Why is a Christian convert going in to the holy place and pleading in prayer for the sins of the people and not rather preaching the gospel to them so they can have their sins forgiven?

Well…assuming this record is true…being “holy from birth” could be an indication that his parents separated him for the Lord’s service from birth or that the Lord himself had separated him by divine calling from birth. From my understanding the Nazarite vow could be either a life long vow or a temporary vow. Also keep in mind there were other forms of personal vows accepted among them culturally in those days. Also I don’t think this is meant to say that he never evangelized in any way, however it indicates that his faithfulness in praying for his people in the holy place stood out above the other things he did.

The first church didn’t do things or see things like we do today. They didn’t have buildings, they met in homes. They’d think a steeple looked like a pagan phallic symbol and the pulpit the podium of a Greek orator of pagan philosophy. They wouldn’t have “altar calls”…and their goal wouldn’t be to “bring sinners to church”. Typically conversion experiences were personal and only after such experiences was the individual permitted into what was often a very secretive enclave of Christians who met together for the Lord’s Supper, prayer, and teaching.

[Amos]

Originally Posted by erikwebster

at least you get to see what they are saying, ive get banned from most of them on sign-up or within a day or so like what happened at JP when they said they wanted to be a full spectrum forum in the very beginning (that lasted about 3 days before the mass bans).

JP never claimed to want to be a "full spectrum forum" in the sense of anything goes.

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by Amos

I get my doctrine from the Word, not some uninspired historian, Brother.

Paul said it was a shame. That's good enough for me.

Nothing to debate.

Amen, bro.

The New Testament says says it is a shame for a man to have long hair, but for women long hair is a glory unto her.

No "historical writings" can supercede what's written in the word of God. Plain and simple.
It's unfortunate that there are some who would try to cast doubt upon, or undermine, what's plainly written in scripture.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

Amen, bro.

The New Testament says says it is a shame for a man to have long hair, but for women long hair is a glory unto her.

No "historical writings" can supercede what's written in the word of God. Plain and simple.
It's unfortunate that there are some who would try to cast doubt upon, or undermine, what's plainly written in scripture.

Paul was addressing the tendency among the Hellenistic men to wear long curled and even braided hair. Kings and wealthy Hellenist men among the Greeks would wear their hair dangling in styled or decorated locks around their heads much like women. So it seemed to have an air of sophistication to it in the eyes of the Greek people. Paul saw this as immodest and feminine, so it was a shame. It's an issue of worldly style.

Paul wasn’t addressing vows in which the hair is allowed to merely grow in an un-kept fashion until the vow was completed such as the Nazarite vow. Paul himself made such vows….

Acts 18:18
18And Paul after this tarried there yet a good while, and then took his leave of the brethren, and sailed thence into Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila; having shorn his head in Cenchrea: for he had a vow.

What undermines Scripture is when people pitch verses against each other from various parts of the Bible. The outsider walks away thinking the Bible’s just a confused jumble of contradictory teachings that Christians fight over. A proper understanding of context and culture can bring harmony to Scriptures that appear to contradict each other, like what we see above. Yes, Paul said that long hair on a man was shameful; in Corinthian culture it was immodest, feminine, and extravagant. And Yes, Paul himself appears to have kept a vow precluding him from cutting his hair for a season (most believe this was a Nazarite vow); but this was a vow of consecration. These are two very different subjects.