New Testament writer had long hair

[Sam]

Originally Posted by mfblume

King James... didn't he have long hair?

and wasn't he a pervert?

If you're gonna be Protestant, get a real Protestant Bible like the Geneva Bible.
It's older than the KJV and "more Protestant."

[Brad Murphy]

Remember, a lot of people don't consider themselves protestant because they didn't "protest" the Catholic church and break away from it... they were always UPC right back to Christ.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Right. When alleged history says something that contradicts the Word of God, go with the Word. The word says it is a shame for a man to have long hair. Why are people hunting for history to contradict the Word? Sounds like a Gospel of Judas spirit.

I think everyone’s lost sight of the point.

The point is while the Bible says it’s a “shame” (not a sin) for a man to have long hair, Paul evidently took upon himself a vow (most think a Nazarite vow) wherein he didn’t cut his hair and grew it long. Now, there has to be a way to reconcile the two or the Bible has a glaring contradiction. By considering Hellenistic culture and the worldly hair styles of Paul’s day and comparing it with the Nazarite vow we can see the clear distinction. One was a choice of fashion and culture, identification with the world; while the other was a vow of separation or deprivation unto consecration. Paul clearly condemns long and worldly hair styles for styles sake on men. Yet Paul didn’t condemn the consecration customs of his people and in fact took upon himself such a vow for a period of time.

Now, let’s consider this extra-biblical text considered in this thread. Assuming it’s accurate and holds some validity, we should ask if this apostle was of Jewish decent and if he had taken upon himself this vow?

Paul was combating Hellenistic worldliness…not condemning the Nazarite vow.

In a sense, the exception makes the rule. Unless one was a Jew taking upon them the Nazarite vow (and all its stipulations), one had no reason to have long hair.

Nowhere in the educated approach do we see license for men to wear long hair. But we do harmonize a seeming contradiction.

[Aquila]

If a brother says, “Hey, Paul and the apostles occasionally grew their hair long, I’m going to also.” You just ask a few simple questions. You ask, “Are you a Jew?” If the answer’s “No.”, inform him that it’s not for him. If he say’s he’s a Jew or Israelite, list the additional requirements of the vow….

1. It is for men and women who want to separate themselves to the Lord. Verse 2
2. He shall separate himself from wine and strong drink… he shall not drink vinegar of wine, vinegar of strong drink, liquor of grapes or eat moist grapes or dried grapes all the days of the vow. Verse 3
3. He shall eat nothing made from the vine tree, the kernels or the husk. Verse 4
4. No razor shall come upon his head all the days of the vow.
5. He shall come to no dead body all the days of his vow. He shall not make himself unclean for father, mother, brother or sister when they die. Verses 6 & 7
6. If someone should die suddenly by his side, he shall be defiled and go through a cleansing process and offer sacrifices and then the vow shall begin from the beginning. The days served shall not count toward the fulfillment of the vow. Verses 9 – 13
7. When the days of the vow were fulfilled the man is to shave his head at the tabernacle and offer sacrifices. Verses 13 – 21

If he is obstinate and insists he has to make the vow…let him. Soon congregants will look at him strangely and social pressure will wake him up and suddenly, God will release him from his vow early. Imagine that. LOL

Then inform him that he can make a vow unto the Lord financially as in a "faith promise" and with that he can excersize his faith.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Aquila

If a brother says, “Hey, Paul and the apostles occasionally grew their hair long, I’m going to also.” You just ask a few simple questions. You ask, “Are you a Jew?” If the answer’s “No.”, inform him that it’s not for him. If he say’s he’s a Jew or Israelite, list the additional requirements of the vow….

If it was a sin for a man to have long hair there wouldn't be an exception that God put in the Scripture. Every other Scripture in the Bible that talks about hair growing or being cut is contrary to this interpretation of I Cor. Why do we continue to see this ONE verse this way?

We have ONE verse about baptism for the dead, there are more theories on it than you can count but we criticize people who interpret ONE verse to mean we baptize for the dead. We don’t believe baptism is for the dead. Why? Because we have other Scriptures that seem to teach otherwise.

There are numerous verses about Jesus name baptism and we interpret Jesus’ statement Matthew 28 in light of those Scriptures.

Why are we so inconsistent about this passage

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

If it was a sin for a man to have long hair there wouldn't be an exception that God put in the Scripture. Every other Scripture in the Bible that talks about hair growing or being cut is contrary to this interpretation of I Cor. Why do we continue to see this ONE verse this way?

We have ONE verse about baptism for the dead, there are more theories on it than you can count but we criticize people who interpret ONE verse to mean we baptize for the dead. We don’t believe baptism is for the dead. Why? Because we have other Scriptures that seem to teach otherwise.

There are numerous verses about Jesus name baptism and we interpret Jesus’ statement Matthew 28 in light of those Scriptures.

Why are we so inconsistent about this passage

I don't see an inconsistancy. The Nazarite vow wasn't a man with merely a long hair style. It was relatively unkept and humbling in addition to other rules of consecration. Paul addresses the long Hellenistic hair styles of Corinth by saying that if a man has long hair it is a "shame". Notice Paul clearly states that long hair styles on a man is a shame. However, he doesn't call it a "sin"...therefore Nazarites aren't in sin.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I don't see an inconsistancy. Can you elaborate?

If we teach that Scripture teaches it is a sin for a man to have long hair and then we have Samuel, Sampson, John the Baptist, and maybe Elijah having long hair seems inconsistent. Commands in Scripture to shave a woman’s head if she were to take the nazararite vow, if she were a foreign captive taken as a wife etc. the fact that Paul took a nazarite vow in the NT, regardless of the fact that he was a Jew, the Old Covenant was finished.

You don't see a contradiction when you teach it is a sin for a man to have long hair and for a woman to cut hers??

[Sam]

Hannah promised YHWH that if He gave her a son, that son would be consecrated as a nazirite all the days of his life (ref 1 Samuel 1:11, 28). We assume Samuel kept this consecration but we don't know for sure whether he did or not. The Angel of YHWH (Jesus in a pre-incarnate form) directed that Samson be a nazirite from the womb (Judges 13:3-5). We know from the record that there were times Samson maintained the outer sign of consecration but did not live the real consecration. The wording of Luke 1:15 seems to indicate that Yochanan the Immerser (John the Baptist) could have been a nazirite from the womb but it doesn't clearly say so.

The wording used in describing the nazirite consecration in Numbers 6:1-21 indicates that it was just the accepted custom that both men and women normally cut their hair but allowed it to grow during the time of the vow. The Old Testament does not teach the "uncut hair" doctrine that some have derived from 1 Corinthians chapter 11. Absalom, one of the sons of David cut his hair once a year according to 1 Samuel 14:25-26. How does this reconcile with the "uncut hair" doctrine? Was his hair considered short the day he cut it and then for the next 364 days was it considered long/uncut? Or was the annual cutting often enough to qualify it to fall into the short/shorn/uncut category?

[theoldpaths]

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.

First and foremost, is it likely that an apostle would be living in direct disobedience to the word of God? No it is not!

But let's consider the source - Eusebius...

Matthew 28:19 - Eusebius of Caesarea (~275 – May 30, 339), bishop of Caesarea in Palestine and is often referred to as the father of church history because of his work in recording the history of the early Christian church Some 17 times in his works prior to Nicea (325 AD Catholic Trinitarian Council), Eusebius quotes Matthew 28:19 as "Go and make disciples of all nations in my name" without mentioning the Trinity baptism command.

Matthew 28:19 - There are three passages in the works of Eusebius in which Mt 28:19 is quoted as we see it today, but all of these belong to the last period of his literary activity which fell after the Council of Nicea (325 AD Catholic Trinitarian Council).

Matthew 28:19 - Its interesting to note that the scripture references from Eusebius are 17 times "in my name" before the Nicean Council (325 AD Catholic Trinitarian Council) and 3 times with the trinitarian formula afterwards - hmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Incidentally, there is a manuscript that quotes Matt 28:19 with "in my name" without the titles, which would agree with Luke's version of the great commission in Luke 24:47, which can be seen at the following link...

http://jesus-messiah.com/apologetics...hew-proof.html

The confession that he proposed became the basis of the Nicene Creed.

he was involved in the dispute with Eustathius of Antioch who opposed the growing influence of Origen

Eusebius was an admirer of Origen

Eusebius, the court theologian, wrote eulogies in praise of Constantine.

After nearly being excommunicated for his heresy by Alexander of Alexandria, Eusebius submitted and agreed to the Nicene Creed at the First Council of Nicaea.

Notwithstanding the great influence of his works on others, the accuracy of Eusebius' accounts has sometimes been questioned.

* In the Ecclesiastical History, book 8, chapter 2, in which he introduces his discussion of the Great Persecution under Diocletian with: "Wherefore we have decided to relate nothing concerning them except the things in which we can vindicate the Divine judgment. [...] We shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity."

* In the Martyrs of Palestine, chapter 12, in which Eusebius provides a list of events which are omitted from the text: "I think it best to pass by all the other events which occurred in the meantime: such as [...] the lust of power on the part of many, the disorderly and unlawful ordinations, and the schisms among the confessors themselves; also the novelties which were zealously devised against the remnants of the Church by the new and factious members, who added innovation after innovation and forced them in unsparingly among the calamities of the persecution, heaping misfortune upon misfortune. I judge it more suitable to shun and avoid the account of these things, as I said at the beginning."

* In his Praeparatio evangelica (xii, 31), Eusebius declares that it is "lawful and fitting" to use fictions (pseudos) as medicine[5].

* His treatment of source documents is also in doubt, since his Ecclesiastical History quotes extensively from a fictional exchange of letters between Abgar V of Edessa and Jesus[6].

* The panegyrical tone of the Vita, plus the omission of internal Christian conflicts in the Canones, suggests to many that his writings should be trusted with caution.[7].

These and other issues have invited controversy and the condemnation of historians. Gibbon noted that "He indirectly confesses that he has related whatever might redound to the glory, and has suppressed all that could tend to the disgrace, of religion".[8], while the Swiss historian Jacob Burckhardt was considerably blunter and dismissed Eusebius as "the first thoroughly dishonest historian of antiquity".

It must be also noted that he did NOT live in the same life time as James.

Finally, to repeat...

Is it likely that an apostle would be living in direct disobedience to the word of God? No it is not!

God's prophetic view of his ministry...

Eze 44:20 Neither shall they shave their heads, nor suffer their locks to grow long; they shall only poll their heads.

poll - to cut, clip, trim, shear

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

If we teach that Scripture teaches it is a sin for a man to have long hair and then we have Samuel, Sampson, John the Baptist, and maybe Elijah having long hair seems inconsistent. Commands in Scripture to shave a woman’s head if she were to take the nazirite vow, if she were a foreign captive taken as a wife etc. the fact that Paul took a nazarite vow in the NT, regardless of the fact that he was a Jew, the Old Covenant was finished.

You don't see a contradiction when you teach it is a sin for a man to have long hair and for a woman to cut hers??

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.