New Testament writer had long hair

[Aquila]

I think there's a leap in logic in some posts here. Paul explained to the Corinthians that long hair was a shame on a man but a woman's glory. And that if a woman uncover her head (actually head covering but we apply it to hair) it dishonors her head (her husband).

Where does it say that long hair on a man or short hair on a woman is "sin"? Sin is the breaking of God's commandments. Sin is a heaven or hell issue. Paul is talking about propriety, modesty,proper appearance, and conduct in the church. A shame isn't the same thing as a sin.

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I think there's a leap in logic in some posts here. Paul explained to the Corinthians that long hair was a shame on a man but a woman's glory. And that if a woman uncover her head (actually head covering but we apply it to hair) it dishonors her head (her husband).

Where does it say that long hair on a man or short hair on a woman is "sin"? Sin is the breaking of God's commandments. Sin is a heaven or hell issue. Paul is talking about propriety, modesty,proper appearance, and conduct in the church. A shame isn't the same thing as a sin.

Fine. You can try to make that distinction if you want... but why would any Christian want to do something the bible describes as being a shame? I think one commons sense rule is: if you know God doesn't like something, just don't do it.

And to your other point... "sin" isn't just breaking a commandment of God. Sin is also not doing something that we know God clearly expects from us. Once we have the knowledge of what God wants, we have an obligation to do it.
As James 4:17 says "To him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin"

[Baron1710]

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.

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.

[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.

[Baron1710]

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.

Hold up...you used the term "natural law" I simply showed you that you were in error as to the use of it. If you don't have an argument say so but making it about Locke v. the Bible is clearly not what was said.

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

Hold up...you used the term "natural law" I simply showed you that you were in error as to the use of it. If you don't have an argument say so but making it about Locke v. the Bible is clearly not what was said.

I "dont have an argument"? OK. Whatever.
You seem to unwilling to let this go, so let me just say it plainly like this:

The long hair teaching that Paul laid down is not based solely on natural law.

Paul simply referred to it ("does not even nature itself teach you") to further buttress the point he was making.

Thus, Locke and Aquina's words on natural law still dont undermine what Paul says on the issue, because natural law is not the sole basis of Paul's teaching.

Have a good day sir. Maybe someone else here wants to argue with you further on this. I don't.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

I "dont have an argument"? OK. Whatever.
You seem to unwilling to let this go, so let me just say it plainly like this:

The long hair teaching that Paul laid down is not based solely on natural law.

Paul simply referred to it ("does not even nature itself teach you") to further buttress the point he was making.

Thus, Locke and Aquina's words on natural law still dont undermine what Paul says on the issue, because natural law is not the sole basis of Paul's teaching.

Have a good day sir. Maybe someone else here wants to argue with you further on this. I don't.

An argument is not a negative thing, when I go to court I better have one. I am not trying to be rude, I am trying to be logical and consistent with Scripture. Did God suddenly change his mind and reveal in the NT his law on hair that was contrary to multiple exceptions he made in the law? That doesn't seem likely to me. My main argument was not Locke or Aquinas but the Scripture itself and logic which it would appear is discounted if it doesn’t line up with a particular interpretation of Scripture.

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

An argument is not a negative thing, when I go to court I better have one. I am not trying to be rude, I am trying to be logical and consistent with Scripture. Did God suddenly change his mind and reveal in the NT his law on hair that was contrary to multiple exceptions he made in the law? That doesn't seem likely to me. My main argument was not Locke or Aquinas but the Scripture itself and logic which it would appear is discounted if it doesn’t line up with a particular interpretation of Scripture.

Bro...I'm not trying to be contentious either. I just think we're going to go round and round on this, and not accomplish much.

To me, your own words above, "multiple exceptions" goes to the very core the issue. They were exceptions, not the norm. Paul was just spelling out for the saints what the norm is. But the existence of clearly understood and explained exceptions in the Bible does not in anyway negate what Paul stated as being the norm. Thus God didnt "suddenly change his mind"...as a matter of fact, he didn't change his mind at all. The fact that they were, as you yourself say, "exceptions" in the OT means that long hair on men etc, was never God's norm. Thus there is really no inconsistency at all, despite what some assert.

To me, it seems pretty straightforward. But what seems clear and logical to me, doesn't seem the same to you... and vice versa. So let's simply agree to disagree, and move on. If either of us is in error on this, may the Lord reveal it to us.

Blessings.

[COOPER]

Our Old brother Sammy in the old Testy had long hair like a Rastifarian.....God liked it and anointed him with great strength!


LONG hair may be a shame but it gave Sammy history in the Bible ! GOD DID NOT CALL HIS LONG HAIR A SHAME OR SIN.

Shame is not a Sin!


PAUL was just opinionated

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

Bro...I'm not trying to be contentious either. I just think we're going to go round and round on this, and not accomplish much.

To me, your own words above, "multiple exceptions" goes to the very core the issue. They were exceptions, not the norm. Paul was just spelling out for the saints what the norm is. But the existence of clearly understood and explained exceptions in the Bible does not in anyway negate what Paul stated as being the norm. Thus God didnt "suddenly change his mind"...as a matter of fact, he didn't change his mind at all. The fact that they were, as you yourself say, "exceptions" in the OT means that long hair on men etc, was never God's norm. Thus there is really no inconsistency at all, despite what some assert.

To me, it seems pretty straightforward. But what seems clear and logical to me, doesn't seem the same to you... and vice versa. So let's simply agree to disagree, and move on. If either of us is in error on this, may the Lord reveal it to us.

Blessings.

Just for the sake of clarity the point I was making was that those passages were NOT exceptions but rather consistent with God's requirements as to hair (that He has no requirement, we would not say that one should or shouldn't let their fingernails grow because of these passages but that was part of taking the foreign bride). They would only be seen as exceptions IF we interpret I Cor 11 as being the rule.