Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him?
(1Corinthians 11:14)Would the author of those words have considered the Shroud of Turin genuine?
Actually, I do believe Paul considered the TS genuine, but that is a separate argument for later.
As for long hair, you don’t even need to go to the TS to argue about hair length. People in the OT also had long hair.
[Jdg 16:17 KJV] 17 That he told her all his heart, and said unto her, There hath not come a razor upon mine head; for I [have been] a Nazarite unto God from my mother’s womb: if I be shaven, then my strength will go from me, and I shall become weak, and be like any [other] man.So, how would Paul have viewed people who vowed to be a Nazarite?
And it even seemed like Paul had long hair at some point.
[Act 18:18 KJV] 18 And 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.https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1113875#p1113875
Athetotheist wrote: ↑Sat Mar 04, 2023 9:35 am What did he do, rise from the dead and make a quick run to the barber so his disciples wouldn’t recognize him as the same dishonorable guy they had followed around for three years? Or did he get his slick new crop to hide his seedy past from Paul? If the TS image is what Jesus looked like, what would Jesus have thought of Paul’s belief? Would he have thanked Paul for setting him straight after all that time embarrassing himself as a dishonorable Messiah?
The resurrection occurred before Paul had written anything. So, these would be non sequiturs and not related at all to the argument of the TS. And during the time of Jesus (and even after), the vow of the Nazarite is evidence long hair was allowed by the Jews. So, the issue of hair length in 1 Cor 11 has nothing directly related to the shroud or the resurrection.
The question is more of a hermeneutics issue of how to handle Paul’s mention of hair in 1 Cor 11.
Here’s the passage:
[1Co 11:1-15 KJV] 1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also [am] of Christ. 2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered [them] to you. 3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God. 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having [his] head covered, dishonoureth his head. 5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with [her] head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. 6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. 7 For a man indeed ought not to cover [his] head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. 8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. 9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. 10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on [her] head because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. 12 For as the woman [is] of the man, even so [is] the man also by the woman; but all things of God. 13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? 14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? 15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for [her] hair is given her for a covering.Doubtful the point here is giving hair cut lessons or even making a mandate on hair length. He was using hair as an illustration of the main point about authority.
In this passage, the word used for long hair is κομᾷ. This is difficult to fully interpret because this word is only used twice in the NT and only in this passage. The root word of κομᾷ is κόμη and κόμη is only used once and only in this passage as well.
1 Cor 11:14-15 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair (κομᾷ), it is a shame unto him? 15 But if a woman have long hair (κομᾷ), it is a glory to her: for [her] hair (κόμη) is given her for a covering.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon … jv/tr/0-1/
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon … jv/tr/0-1/
There is another more commonly used term for hair in the NT – θρίξ.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon … jv/tr/0-1/
This is used 15 times in the NT and is found in Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, 1 Peter, and Revelation. So, θρίξ is the more commonly word used for hair.
Obviously there is something different that Paul is trying to convey since he used a unique word for hair. Do we know exactly what it means? I argue we do not since we have only this passage to go from.
As for how the passage should be interpreted, I lean towards how EXB translates it. EXB says “nature” is referring to the Roman custom, not to the entire natural world.
1Cor 11:14-15
14 ·Even [Does not…?] ·nature [or custom; culture] itself teaches you that wearing long hair is shameful for a man [Greco-Roman men normally wore their hair short]. 15 But long hair is a woman’s glory. Long hair is given to her as a covering.
This would make sense to me since Paul was writing to a Roman culture audience and was trying to argue to them about the structure of authority. So he used an illustration that they would understand. So, it’s not in conflict the with Jewish custom of the Nazirite vow, which the Corinthians would not have known about.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1113948#p1113948
Athetotheist wrote: ↑Sat Mar 04, 2023 11:44 pmHe’s saying that men’s hair and women’s hair should be kept at different lengths in deference to authority.
…If all he’s talking about is authority, he could rank God, man and woman as he does without making any mention of hair. But hair is the focal point of his argument. He goes on and on about it, so he obviously isn’t throwing it in as something his audience can just take or leave. It isn’t about the word he uses for “hair”; it’s about his use of hair length as a gender distinction.
Yes, he could’ve also not mentioned about head coverings as well. But he used hair length and head coverings specifically to illustrate the principle of authority, not saying you must wear head coverings and have short hair in order to have any “deference to authority”.
If Paul was alive now and went to churches, would he be appalled at the sheer number of women who do not wear head coverings and the men that have long hair? I doubt it. And we have hardly anyone complaining about this from the pulpit and saying they are disobeying Paul, except for perhaps a few fundamentalist churches.
The physical appearance of men and women was obviously important to him, so the physical appearance of his Messiah would also be important to him.
Bad argument on several levels. Physical appearance was not important to Paul. If there was anything that was important physically, it would be circumcision (which was very important in the OT), not hair length (which was a requirement for a Nazirite vow). Yet, he was the main person who argued against circumcision. Also, what Paul thinks has no impact on what Jesus or the shroud should’ve looked like.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1113985#p1113985
Athetotheist wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 12:07 pm
“If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.” (1 Corinthians 11:16)
Yes, the Corinthians were contentious. It was not hair length that they were contentious about. Again, it was only used as an illustration on authority. They were contentious in lack of authority structure, divisions, heresies, not partaking in Lord’s supper correctly, getting drunk, et al.
[1Co 11:17-22 KJV] 17 Now in this that I declare [unto you] I praise [you] not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. 18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. 19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. 20 When ye come together therefore into one place, [this] is not to eat the Lord’s supper. 21 For in eating every one taketh before [other] his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. 22 What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise [you] not.What Paul thinks says a lot about what he would expect Jesus to look like, and about how he would regard someone who looked like the image on the TS.
Paul got his theology from the OT. Where in the OT does it say all males must have short hair?
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1114067#p1114067
Athetotheist wrote: ↑Mon Mar 06, 2023 1:27 pm
You’re taking what Paul is talking about up through verse 16 and applying it to verses 17 onward instead. In vv.17-22 he’s admonishing them for misconduct. The practice held by all the churches which he mentions in v. 16 is what comes before that—-and that’s the practice about hair length.
I’m taking the entire chapter in context. What you’re doing is simply cherry picking verses to build up your own theology, which really has no support from any other scripture, in mainstream interpretation, or even hermeneutic support.
Paul got his theology from the OT. Where in the OT does it say all males must have short hair?
If it doesn’t, then Paul didn’t get his theology from the “OT”—-or else had given it up.
You did not answer my question.
If you do want to go down the scriptural route, you’ll need to present verses from the OT to argue about hair length since the OT was the only thing written prior to the resurrection.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1114160#p1114160
Athetotheist wrote: ↑Tue Mar 07, 2023 4:02 pm
If it has no other support in scripture, that’s Paul’s issue and not mine.
Yes, it’s your issue if you claim Jesus cannot have long hair and have no scriptural basis for this from the OT.
Even if we grant Paul was mandating for short hair (which is false), it would be immaterial to the TS since it was written after the resurrection.
Again, Paul is the one pronouncing the edict and so he would have to back it up from scripture, not I.
What do you mean not you? You’re the one incorrectly interpreting the passage as if its a mandate that all men should have short hair. We have no scriptural basis for this in the OT and even have a passage that Paul had long hair at one point.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1114281#p1114281
Athetotheist wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 9:33 pm
And what does “after the resurrection” have to do with it?
When Jesus was resurrected, had Paul written anything yet?
How am I misinterpreting Paul’s argument which leads him to conclude that it’s a “dishonor”?
I already addressed this:
otseng wrote: ↑Sat Mar 04, 2023 9:43 pm
EXB says “nature” is referring to the Roman custom, not to the entire natural world.
1Cor 11:14-15
14 ·Even [Does not…?] ·nature [or custom; culture] itself teaches you that wearing long hair is shameful for a man [Greco-Roman men normally wore their hair short]. 15 But long hair is a woman’s glory. Long hair is given to her as a covering.
This would make sense to me since Paul was writing to a Roman culture audience and was trying to argue to them about the structure of authority. So he used an illustration that they would understand. So, it’s not in conflict the with Jewish custom of the Nazirite vow, which the Corinthians would not have known about.
It was shameful not in reference to the entire world, since the Jews had long hair with the Nazarite vow. It was shameful for the Corinthians and Romans, since their culture had short hair for men.
if we don’t have any scriptural basis for it then neither does Paul.
Exactly.
And you can’t just ignore what he said and pretend that he didn’t say it because it has that weakness.
It’s your interpretation that is being rejected, not what the Bible says.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1114376#p1114376
Athetotheist wrote: ↑Fri Mar 10, 2023 8:26 pm
And before you bring up the Nazarite vow again, please provide scriptural evidence that Jesus ever took such a vow.
Never claimed that Jesus took a Nazarite vow. All I’m saying is we have examples of Jews in the OT that had long hair and there was no prohibition against it.
Another example of a person with long hair in the OT is Absalom.
[2Sa 14:25-26 NET] 25 Now in all Israel everyone acknowledged that there was no man as handsome as Absalom. From the sole of his feet to the top of his head he was perfect in appearance. 26 When he would shave his head – at the end of every year he used to shave his head, for it grew too long and he would shave it – he used to weigh the hair of his head at three pounds according to the king’s weight.https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1114727#p1114727
Athetotheist wrote: ↑Sat Mar 11, 2023 2:06 pm
Who did Paul claim he saw on the road?
Jesus. Does it mention anything about how long his hair was when he saw Jesus on the road?
Then Paul has no scriptural basis for his prohibition against it.
So, what is wrong then is your interpretation that Paul is mandating for short hair.
I’m referring to φύσις—-“physis” (Strong’s G5449), which is translated in 1Cor. 11:14 as “nature”.
Here’s definition from BLB of physis – φύσις:
nature
A. the nature of things, the force, laws, order of nature
i. as opposed to what is monstrous, abnormal, perverse
ii. as opposed what has been produced by the art of man: the natural branches, i.e. branches by the operation of nature
B. birth, physical origin
C. a mode of feeling and acting which by long habit has become nature
D. the sum of innate properties and powers by which one person differs from others, distinctive native peculiarities, natural characteristics: the natural strength, ferocity, and intractability of beasts
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon … jv/tr/0-1/
Like a lot of words used in the Bible, there is a wide range of meaning in physis. So, it will depend on the context of the passage to determine what is the exact meaning.
When interpreting a passage, many things has to be considered to determine what the author was conveying. One also has to be careful to do exegesis instead of eisegesis. Trying to force one’s own belief into the text is not properly interpreting it. One telltale sign of eisegesis is it is in opposition to other passages in the Bible.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1114869#p1114869
Athetotheist wrote: ↑Sun Mar 12, 2023 12:18 pm
What’s wrong is my “interpretation” of what Paul not only wrote, but backed up with an argument?
Cherry picking scripture is not a valid argument. You take passages out of context, have an interpretation that is not backed up by any other verses, and is in conflict with other verses.
Do you have any reference to any other source other than you that has this interpretation from Corinthians that Paul is mandating for all men to have short hair?
Right—-that’s why you can’t write off Paul’s judgement of hair length as mere “custom” after he goes to such lengths to establish it as part of a divine order.
Where does it says “divine order”?
Presuming that every biblical conflict is mere “eisegesis” simply makes the claims of the Bible unfalsifiable, which you said earlier was not your intention.
There’s no conflict. I’ve provided multiple passages from the OT that long hair was allowed in the OT. Paul got his theology from the OT. As a matter of fact, out of all the authors in the NT, he arguable knew the OT the most. He was writing to the Corinthians on the need for order and harmony. He used the custom of short hair among the Greco/Roman citizens as an illustration of order.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1114983#p1114983
myth-one.com wrote: ↑Tue May 30, 2023 8:56 pm
Here’s more speculation, Joey:
The image on the shroud of Turin appears to be of a man with long hair.
The shroud may be the burial cloth for someone during that period, but it is probably not Jesus. It is obviously someone with long hair and Jesus probably did not have long hair:
Doth not even nature itself teach you, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? (I Corinthians 11:14)
Paul wrote Corinthians and he knew Jesus Christ in person. In First Corinthians 15:5-8, Paul lists people who saw Jesus after His resurrection from the grave. Paul writes that he was one of these:
And last of all he was seen of me also… (I Corinthians 15:8)
Certainly, Paul would not have written “if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him,” if Jesus had long hair.
On the other hand, shoulder length hair may have been considered short 2,000 years ago.
But, I spec not.
I spent a considerable amount of time arguing about hair length. Here are the links to them:
viewtopic.php?p=1113875#p1113875
viewtopic.php?p=1113985#p1113985
viewtopic.php?p=1114067#p1114067
viewtopic.php?p=1114160#p1114160
viewtopic.php?p=1114281#p1114281
viewtopic.php?p=1114376#p1114376
viewtopic.php?p=1114727#p1114727
viewtopic.php?p=1114869#p1114869
viewtopic.php?p=1114983#p1114983
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1123167#p1123167