Jump to content
Online Baptist

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 151
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

1Co 11:14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?   Yes, there's always been men who had long hair, men who do as they wish & listen not to

That's fine - you go ahead and add works to salvation. As for me, I will stick with God when he says that salvation is by grace through faith and not of works. You can not know the hearts of other

This isn't directed to you, SFIC, but its a general comment:   Always wondered why we need to wear a ribbon to show we are 'aware' of something. Who isn't aware of breast cancer, seriously?  Breast

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I'm 41.  I grew up in the 80's, and in the farm community I grew up in, if a boy came to school wearing that......he'd been beat up.  Not that it was right, but that's what would have happened. 

Pink for men's clothes was out at that time. In the 60s pink was still good for men. I have one photo of a young me in a nice pink dress shirt. Look at some old John Wayne movies and he's wearing a pink shirt.

 

It was a combination of flaming homosexuals taking over pink and the baby industry really pushing hard to make pink colored items for baby girls and blue for baby boys, that ended pink shirts for men.

 

However, it seems the trend is reversing and pink shirts are making a comeback among heterosexual men.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

Pink for men's clothes was out at that time. In the 60s pink was still good for men. I have one photo of a young me in a nice pink dress shirt. Look at some old John Wayne movies and he's wearing a pink shirt.

 

It was a combination of flaming homosexuals taking over pink and the baby industry really pushing hard to make pink colored items for baby girls and blue for baby boys, that ended pink shirts for men.

 

However, it seems the trend is reversing and pink shirts are making a comeback among heterosexual men.

They took our rainbow, lets take their pink!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

What is too long/too short?  The standards are subjective.  

Not really, there is a generally accepted standard of this.

 

One of the easiest ways to follow this is the idea that if one has to ask whether the hair is too long or too short, it is. The short hair should be obviously short while long hair should be obviously long. Among the vast majority, there is general agreement as to what this means.

 

As for Christians, we shouldn't be trying to see how close we can come to having our hair too long or too short, but should rather want it to be clear.

 

Okay. All men report for a Marine recruit haircut party tomorrow and all women, no hair cutting until this time next year!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

1Co 11:14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

 

Yes, there's always been men who had long hair, men who do as they wish & listen not to our Great God & His Word.

 

 

When I was young many women wore hats & or scarves, seems that has stopped for the most part. However I know that around here some of the black women were hats to church.

 

I guess this has been more than 12 years back I preached in a church & one woman has a hat on, brought back many fond memories.

Jerry, I wasn't suggesting that there was nothing wrong with long hair on men. But the OP worded his post like no men in the past ever wore long hair.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members

I do not believe the woman's hair was or is her covering.  If it were, these verses would make absolutely no sense whatsoever.

1 Corinthians 11:5-6 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. 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.

Now, substitute the words covered and uncovered with hair and no hair and read it  again:

1 Corinthians 11:5-6 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with no hair on her head dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman have no hair, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her have hair.

Makes absolutely no sense.  If she has no hair it is as if she were shaven?  Doesn't say if she has short hair, it says of she be not covered.  If the hair is the covering, then that would mean if she have no hair.  If she have no hair, let her be shaven?

Wait!  If she has no hair, what is there to shave?

Sorry guys, but the covering in 1 Corinthians 11 was speaking of something that covered the hair, not the hair itself.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

I do not believe the woman's hair was or is her covering.  If it were, these verses would make absolutely no sense whatsoever.

1 Corinthians 11:5-6 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. 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.

Now, substitute the words covered and uncovered with hair and no hair and read it  again:

1 Corinthians 11:5-6 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with no hair on her head dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman have no hair, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her have hair.

Makes absolutely no sense.  If she has no hair it is as if she were shaven?  Doesn't say if she has short hair, it says of she be not covered.  If the hair is the covering, then that would mean if she have no hair.  If she have no hair, let her be shaven?

Wait!  If she has no hair, what is there to shave?

Sorry guys, but the covering in 1 Corinthians 11 was speaking of something that covered the hair, not the hair itself.

To be uncovered doesn't mean to have NO hair, it means to have short hair. Simple. If she's going to wear her hair short like a man, then she is in rebellion and might as well shave it all off. It makes perfect sense. Especially the part where it says her hair is given her for a covering.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really, there is a generally accepted standard of this.

 

One of the easiest ways to follow this is the idea that if one has to ask whether the hair is too long or too short, it is. The short hair should be obviously short while long hair should be obviously long. Among the vast majority, there is general agreement as to what this means.

 

 

Of course it is.  It is society that sets the standard.  If the standard is set by opinion (vast majority or other) it is changeable and therefore subjective.

 

Did Christ have long hair?  I'd venture to guess that many here would say yes.  In his day, I'd guess no.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

Of course it is.  It is society that sets the standard.  If the standard is set by opinion (vast majority or other) it is changeable and therefore subjective.

 

Did Christ have long hair?  I'd venture to guess that many here would say yes.  In his day, I'd guess no.

I'd venture to say, No, because Jesus wasn't a NAzarite, and the sign of a NAzarite was not cutting their hair, thus, long hair. If Paul, by the Holy Ghost, said that it was a shame for a man to have long hair, then Jesus was shameful and was rebellious against the very Order that He both set and was a part of.

 

This is not a societal standard, but a biblical one. Yes, at one time many pastors and preachers had long hair-but it still didn't make it right, even if society accepted it. Maybe especially if society accepted it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

how did we go from hair and cover to pink. so if we are hear lots just say the only time a men should wear pink is for cancer i lost my mom and my wife sister to cancer that the only time.

 

I don't like pink, for its about the Susan G. Komen foundation who supports Planned Parenthood & abortion.
 
 
If you give to the Komen foundation, the pink people, your money just may go to support abortions, I would not support it in any manner nor recommend anyone to.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd venture to say, No, because Jesus wasn't a NAzarite, and the sign of a NAzarite was not cutting their hair, thus, long hair. If Paul, by the Holy Ghost, said that it was a shame for a man to have long hair, then Jesus was shameful and was rebellious against the very Order that He both set and was a part of.

 

This is not a societal standard, but a biblical one. Yes, at one time many pastors and preachers had long hair-but it still didn't make it right, even if society accepted it. Maybe especially if society accepted it.

 

Re Christ's hair length:  Never said anything about the Nazarites. Shoulder length, as portrayed in most images of Him through the centuries. 

 

You say it is a Biblical standard.  Where (chap/verse) in Scripture are the definitions of the length of short and the ​length of long?   What is accepted by society is what determines that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don't like pink, for its about the Susan G. Komen foundation who supports Planned Parenthood & abortion.
 
 
If you give to the Komen foundation, the pink people, your money just may go to support abortions, I would not support it in any manner nor recommend anyone to.

 

 

Why is it that there's no color to wear for prostate cancer?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Re Christ's hair length:  Never said anything about the Nazarites. Shoulder length, as portrayed in most images of Him through the centuries. 

 

You say it is a Biblical standard.  Where (chap/verse) in Scripture are the definitions of the length of short and the ​length of long?   What is accepted by society is what determines that.

 

If Christ had long hair, which He did not, He would have violated the Holy Scriptures.

 

1Co 11:14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

 

And of course, Jesus was obedient 100% of the time.

 

Lu 22:42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.

 

So it is, Christ Jesus had short hair.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

In any case, I think Arbo is looking for something like:

1 Hezekiah 12:7 And thy hair shall be no more than two inches from the skin of thy scalp at any corner, and shall not touch thine ears at all.

;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members

In any case, I think Arbo is looking for something like:
1 Hezekiah 12:7 And thy hair shall be no more than two inches from the skin of thy scalp at any corner, and shall not touch thine ears at all.
;)

to some extent, i do believe Arbo has a valid argument. The Bible does not state how long long is or how short short is.

Some, like myself, believe anything longer than two inches is long. Others believe two and a half is not wrong, still others see no problem withe four or five inches.

Who determines what constitutes long?

I never could stand my hair to get long enough to cover even the tops of mys ears.

What if God meant that hair was only to be one inch? or less even?

Good thing He did not say it was a sin to have long hair... only a shame.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Let's also not forget that the pink ribbons and pink for breast cancer awareness are now the symbols for breast cancer awareness and not something exclusive to Komen anymore.

 

There are better groups to donate to for breast cancer help than Komen and many Christians did switch to others when Komen tried to pull their funding of Planned Parenthood only to quickly cave in when Planned Parenthood and liberal women's groups jumped on them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

My point with the comment about the Nazarite, was that they way one could tell someone was a Nazarite if they saw them on the street, was that they did not cut their hair during the entire time of their Nazarite vow. Thus, they would probably have pretty long hair, depending upn the length of the vow. If their vow was only 6 months, their hair should still be obviously long enough to tell, otherwise what is the purpose of the sign? And if everyone had long, shoulder-length hair, how does one tell a Nazarite from everyone else? If everyone wore their hair like we see in the paintings, the sign of the Nazarite would make no sense.

 

It is an interesting fact that the on;y people pointed out as having specifically long hair in the Bible were Absalom and Samson. Samson had a Nazarite vow, but so did John the Baptist, but we never read about John's hair length. Why these two? Because they were so rebellious and I believe the mentioning of the hair has something to do with that. Absalom of course had not vow, he just wore his hair lng like a woman, and how odd that the Lord would use it to be his death. We do well to notice what scrioture has to say about certain things when they so stick out in scripture.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And if everyone had long, shoulder-length hair, how does one tell a Nazarite from everyone else? If everyone wore their hair like we see in the paintings, the sign of the Nazarite would make no sense.

 

 

Unless shoulder-length was the norm, and longer than shoulder-length was considered long by the standard of the day. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Unless shoulder-length was the norm, and longer than shoulder-length was considered long by the standard of the day. ;)

 

Except that it wasn't. The common Jewish custom was to be cut short or cropped in contrast to the long hair and/or shaved heads of the surrounding pagan cultures. Early Rabbinic literature attests that kings had their hair cut daily, the high priest weekly, and the regular priests monthly and it was often done in the Lulian/Julian style in which the top of one row of hair touches the root of another. That can hardly be considered long. Additionally, and more applicable to this discussion is that a first-century archaeological find revealed the length of the man's hair was 3-4 inches on average (probably would not hang past the ears for most people), confirming short hairstyles were the norm, or at least well-represented. As Jesus was, by all accounts, a normal- and unremarkable-looking Jew, it is highly unlikely that he had long hair as popularly depicted in Greek and other early European paintings.

 

"What ifs" are fine when there is nothing to say whether things were one way or the other. However, when the Biblical, historical, and archaeological data is consistent about something then there is no room for speculation. In this case, it is well attested that ancient Jews normally had short hair or were expected to.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Except that it wasn't. The common Jewish custom was to be cut short or cropped in contrast to the long hair and/or shaved heads of the surrounding pagan cultures. Early Rabbinic literature attests that kings had their hair cut daily, the high priest weekly, and the regular priests monthly and it was often done in the Lulian/Julian style in which the top of one row of hair touches the root of another. That can hardly be considered long. Additionally, and more applicable to this discussion is that a first-century archaeological find revealed the length of the man's hair was 3-4 inches on average (probably would not hang past the ears for most people), confirming short hairstyles were the norm, or at least well-represented. As Jesus was, by all accounts, a normal- and unremarkable-looking Jew, it is highly unlikely that he had long hair as popularly depicted in Greek and other early European paintings.

 

"What ifs" are fine when there is nothing to say whether things were one way or the other. However, when the Biblical, historical, and archaeological data is consistent about something then there is no room for speculation. In this case, it is well attested that ancient Jews normally had short hair or were expected to.

I think this is very interesting.  Know of any good books or links to on-line info where people could research it further?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I think this is very interesting.  Know of any good books or links to on-line info where people could research it further?

 

I'll have to dig back through sources and research to find that specifica data again, but a couple of really good books for similar information (I can't remember if the hair specifically was in there or not) are:

 

New Testament: It's Background and Message by Thomas D. Lee and David Alan Black (first few chapters have the good background and context info), ISBN 978-0-8054-2632-8 (you can put this number into a search on Amazon and it will pull it up for you easily)

 

Jewish Backgrounds of the New Testament by J. Julius Scott, ISBN 978-0-8010-2240-1

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

Except that it wasn't. The common Jewish custom was to be cut short or cropped in contrast to the long hair and/or shaved heads of the surrounding pagan cultures. Early Rabbinic literature attests that kings had their hair cut daily, the high priest weekly, and the regular priests monthly and it was often done in the Lulian/Julian style in which the top of one row of hair touches the root of another. That can hardly be considered long. Additionally, and more applicable to this discussion is that a first-century archaeological find revealed the length of the man's hair was 3-4 inches on average (probably would not hang past the ears for most people), confirming short hairstyles were the norm, or at least well-represented. As Jesus was, by all accounts, a normal- and unremarkable-looking Jew, it is highly unlikely that he had long hair as popularly depicted in Greek and other early European paintings.

 

"What ifs" are fine when there is nothing to say whether things were one way or the other. However, when the Biblical, historical, and archaeological data is consistent about something then there is no room for speculation. In this case, it is well attested that ancient Jews normally had short hair or were expected to.

Its a sad fact that many Christians are either afraid to supplement their Bible knowledge with history, or will take history over Bible, one extreme or the other. Yet history, not revisionist, of course, is an excellent way to sometimes gain greater understanding of the Bible.

 

We tend to think of the things of the past according to our way of thinking and acting today, but that is often a great error.  For instance, I believe one reason it is easy for some to believe that, being merely adopted into the family of God, we can then lose that salvation. But when one understands that an adopted child is every bit a leagl child as a natural born child, and one cannot 'un-adopt' an adopted child, (which was actually seen recently in the news), we can see how permanent our adopted position really is.  Or the idea of the inheritance we have in Christ-today, parents boast how they are spending their kids' inheritance, but in the past, an inheritance was a done-deal and considered owed to the children. We see this fact in the story of the prodigal son, that he demanded his inheritance and was given it.

 

So, in this issue, where the Bible tends to be silent, we can see from history how they wore their hair. I relied a lot on historical content when I did my study on the haircovering, since really, the Bible says very little overall. There are a lot of assumptions out there that I was able to remove through historical supplementation. I foudn there were things occurring that woulkd bring about the question of the hair covering being worn, I learned that harlots DID, actually, wear head covers and veils, and I learned that Christians may have probably not used the ctatcombs as meeting places to hide, that the 'Christian art work' is actually pagan Greek art.  

 

Study to shew thyself approved doesn't have to mean JUST scripture. Study that which is relevant to the subject, which we see done well by TheSword, here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

In addition to what ASOD said; in first century Greece (likely the rest of Rome as well), married women wore a head covering (like a scarf or a veil that didn't cover the face) as a display of respect, submission, and deference to their husbands. This was done primarily in official religious or political venues but also in some social gatherings as well. Unwed women did not wear such a head covering. Additionally, priestesses of some pagan gods like Aphrodite and Demeter often shaved their heads. In 1 Corinthians, Paul was dealing with a little bit of chaos and contention brought about by the coalescing of these factors. For whatever reason, women who would normally be expected to wear a head covering were not and it was causing strife in the church. This parallel isn't exact, but imagine if a man's wife today decided to stop wearing her wedding ring and start cutting her husband off in the middle of every point he tried to make in a Sunday School/Adult Bible Study class.

 

 

Re Christ's hair length:  Never said anything about the Nazarites. Shoulder length, as portrayed in most images of Him through the centuries. 

 

You say it is a Biblical standard.  Where (chap/verse) in Scripture are the definitions of the length of short and the ​length of long?   What is accepted by society is what determines that.

I think maybe the point some people are trying to make is not that there is a hair length measurement given in the Bible, but whether or not a woman's hair length is long enough to be distinguished from her husband's hair length and that of other men, in such a way that it communicates a "display of respect, submission, and deference" to her husband or father if she isn't married....that her hair length is symbolic of her willing submission.  Really, we are on a minor aspect of a bigger topic:  a woman is subject to her husband.  Period.  Genesis 3:16 "Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and they conception; in sorrow though shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Sorry, Jerry. But your two verses do not prove Christ had short hair.

Your logic is just as fallible as saying the disciples were of one accord so they all ate peanut butter on Tuesdays.

 

Logic, its not my logic, sorry, but your using human logic, not godly wisdom from above, while disagreeing with God. Maybe you should throw the peanut butter out the door, & forget about it, & stay with the Word.

 

The verse is quite plain.

 
1Co 11:14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

 

And the Bible is:

 
2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Seriously now, you gleaned from my comment (which was a general observation) that I am for abortion?  

 

No, I did not, yet to many will think you are if your wearing Komen pink, & support Komen with you money, that your supporting abortions.

 

And of course if you give them money its will be supporting a charity that supports abortion & your money may go to supporting abortion.

 

And it seem you did not rightly read my reply to you, I'm posting it below.

 

Read the article, do you want to support an outfit that supports abortions?

 

Once again here is a link to the article.

 

I asked a question, I did not say what you are doing.

 

I hope I answered you question & you will stop accusing me of doing that which I did not, & realized I asked a question & forgot to put a question mark at the end. I apologize for placing a period there instead of a question mark.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Except that it wasn't. The common Jewish custom was to be cut short or cropped in contrast to the long hair and/or shaved heads of the surrounding pagan cultures. Early Rabbinic literature attests that kings had their hair cut daily, the high priest weekly, and the regular priests monthly and it was often done in the Lulian/Julian style in which the top of one row of hair touches the root of another. That can hardly be considered long. Additionally, and more applicable to this discussion is that a first-century archaeological find revealed the length of the man's hair was 3-4 inches on average (probably would not hang past the ears for most people), confirming short hairstyles were the norm, or at least well-represented. As Jesus was, by all accounts, a normal- and unremarkable-looking Jew, it is highly unlikely that he had long hair as popularly depicted in Greek and other early European paintings.

 

"What ifs" are fine when there is nothing to say whether things were one way or the other. However, when the Biblical, historical, and archaeological data is consistent about something then there is no room for speculation. In this case, it is well attested that ancient Jews normally had short hair or were expected to.

 

 

It seems to me long hair began back in the 60's in our modern day times & was a big sign of rebellion against that which was right. I remember it quite well yet I never joined in with the rebellious in hair length nor the way they dressed.

 

1Sa 15:23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king.

 

And one thing for sure in this day there's much rebellion against God's way. Many do as they did in the days of Judges.

 

Jg 21:25 In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...