Recent Posts

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »
41
Faith Issues / Re: It's a shame to have long hair
« Last post by LBK on Today at 12:33:22 AM »
Here is what I wrote, Porter:

Failed analogy. Christ is the great and eternal High Priest. We do not know how He is vested or clothed in heaven, so iconographers express this teaching in the way which is instantly recognizable to earthly believers. Just as angels are shown bearing the long staff of an imperial messenger or emissary.

There is no ambiguity in what I wrote.
42
Faith Issues / Re: It's a shame to have long hair
« Last post by FormerReformer on Today at 12:30:15 AM »
There is evidence for St Paul himself having long hair, if the vow Acts 18:18 speaks of is the Nazirite vow.

Right. At least we know, from Acts 21, that his vow ended by his shaving his head in the temple.
Well, no. We know from that very passage that he shaved his head right there in Acts 18:18, but that's beside the point. These vows were apparently common, giving us evidence that there were more than a few first century Jews walking around with long hair.
Quote

Quote
St John the Baptist would probably have also never known a razor, either, given the obvious parallels of his life with that of Samson (though long hair is not explicitly mentioned in the passage, the wine statement implies that he would have been under life-long Nazirite restrictions).

I don't really see the parallels. St. John ate locusts and honey and wore haircloth and lived only in the desert, none of which is similar to Samson. As you said, there is no mention of his hair.
Hmmm. Miraculous birth, announced by an angel, prescription implying an obvious life-long Nazirite vow. You're right. There are no parallels to Samson. My mistake.
Quote

Quote
A blanket condemnation of long hair on men seems out of place given that this was still a common practice at the time St Paul would be writing his epistles - it seems that if St Paul was speaking of long hair, he would have at least made some provisions for vows and so on.

Certainly it wasn't St. Paul's purpose to outline in detail hairdressing for Christian men. The passage is brief and provides no room for that. In fact, there's nothing prescriptive in the passage at all about hair -- St. Paul is using hair to make arguments for covering and uncovering of men and women. He does not say, "Women shall not shave"; he makes an argument from the assumption that women would not want to shave their hair. He does not say, "Men should have hair of such-and-such length or styling"; he makes an argument from the assumption that manly nature is incongruous with womanly nature in re the hair.

The English translation under discussion - "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?" and all who followed the Authorized versions translations. It seems that if this was St Paul's meaning, it would have been easy for some sarcastic Corinthian to say, "Gee, what about yourself, Mr 'Apostle'. Why should we honor your words when your very head dishonors you, St Hairy McHarrington?"

The idea of adornment instead of length fits the scenario much better- and let's face it, the English translators of the Bible from Wycliffe on were never much for comparative translation, often preferring to translate things in a light that would cast shade on accepted Catholic practices with little regard for how other non-biblical authors might have used the terms.
43
Faith Issues / Re: It's a shame to have long hair
« Last post by Porter ODoran on Today at 12:25:52 AM »
1. The consistent iconographic depiction of Christ is with long hair. I very much doubt St Paul would regard how his Lord and Master kept His hair as being unseemly.

This seems to make about as much sense as to say, if we think Christ did not wear omophorion, mitre, &c., then modern bishops are a condemnation of him.

Failed analogy. Christ is the great and eternal High Priest. We do not know how He is vested or clothed in heaven, so iconographers express this teaching in the way which is instantly recognizable to earthly believers. Just as angels are shown bearing the long staff of an imperial messenger or emissary.

Iconographers express the teaching "We do not know how He is vested" in a way instantly recognizable? I must be misreading you.
44
Faith Issues / Re: It's a shame to have long hair
« Last post by LBK on Today at 12:15:11 AM »
1. The consistent iconographic depiction of Christ is with long hair. I very much doubt St Paul would regard how his Lord and Master kept His hair as being unseemly.

This seems to make about as much sense as to say, if we think Christ did not wear omophorion, mitre, &c., then modern bishops are a condemnation of him.

Failed analogy. Christ is the great and eternal High Priest. We do not know how He is vested or clothed in heaven, so iconographers express this teaching in the way which is instantly recognizable to earthly believers. Just as angels are shown bearing the long staff of an imperial messenger or emissary.
45
Faith Issues / Re: It's a shame to have long hair
« Last post by Porter ODoran on Today at 12:09:47 AM »
There is evidence for St Paul himself having long hair, if the vow Acts 18:18 speaks of is the Nazirite vow.

Right. At least we know, from Acts 21, that his vow ended by his shaving his head in the temple.

Quote
St John the Baptist would probably have also never known a razor, either, given the obvious parallels of his life with that of Samson (though long hair is not explicitly mentioned in the passage, the wine statement implies that he would have been under life-long Nazirite restrictions).

I don't really see the parallels. St. John ate locusts and honey and wore haircloth and lived only in the desert, none of which is similar to Samson. As you said, there is no mention of his hair.

Quote
A blanket condemnation of long hair on men seems out of place given that this was still a common practice at the time St Paul would be writing his epistles - it seems that if St Paul was speaking of long hair, he would have at least made some provisions for vows and so on.

Certainly it wasn't St. Paul's purpose to outline in detail hairdressing for Christian men. The passage is brief and provides no room for that. In fact, there's nothing prescriptive in the passage at all about hair -- St. Paul is using hair to make arguments for covering and uncovering of men and women. He does not say, "Women shall not shave"; he makes an argument from the assumption that women would not want to shave their hair. He does not say, "Men should have hair of such-and-such length or styling"; he makes an argument from the assumption that manly nature is incongruous with womanly nature in re the hair.
46
The issue of other churches seems similar to the Latin stand taken several years ago.  They consider other organized christian traditions to be "churches" while they consider themselves to be "the Church".  It is simply an issue of polite semantics and recognizing that a word can have both a formal meaning and a more relaxed one.  It is a means of balancing a recognition of the Truth while avoiding excessive pride.
47
Faith Issues / Re: It's a shame to have long hair
« Last post by Porter ODoran on Yesterday at 11:59:47 PM »
1. The consistent iconographic depiction of Christ is with long hair. I very much doubt St Paul would regard how his Lord and Master kept His hair as being unseemly.

This seems to make about as much sense as to say, if we think Christ did not wear omophorion, mitre, &c., then modern bishops are a condemnation of him.
48
Faith Issues / Re: Open letter from kidnapped Metropolitan Paul of Aleppo.
« Last post by Onesimus on Yesterday at 11:59:14 PM »
My hope is that there may have been some short contact made, as often happens in negotiations for randsom or release.

Regardless, the text itself is beautifully written and reflects a martyrdom of suffering for us all in contemporary times.   
49
Still, can this be seen as confirmation that rumors of the metropolitan's demise were, happily, exaggerated?
50
Faith Issues / Re: It's a shame to have long hair
« Last post by FormerReformer on Yesterday at 11:47:19 PM »
While it's true that the traditional translators into English fudged the "long" bit (the Greek is hard to translate directly), context shows, at least in my mind, that they weren't far off from St. Paul's intent. St. Paul is arguing for differences between men's and women's head-appearance, and in this particular paragraph, contrasting the long, glorious hair of women with what the nature of men requires of men's hair: To sum: he is contrasting shorn hair on women with ______ hair on men -- pick your English word or phrase.

And I don't really think there's any basis in St. Paul himself to make this an argument concerning non-ordained men and women only. Plainly the Church has certain traditions, which surely have their bases, but to insist the Scriptures be turned into legal support for them could quickly prove sophistical. I think St. Paul wanted to see much what St. Clement later promoted: Christian men with polled heads and cropped beards; Christian women with covered heads.

As for the idea that the Hebrew standard was long hair -- what would support this in their Scriptures? Absolom and Samson, sure -- but otherwise, even the idea that there _would_ be a uniform way of dressing the hair over thousands of years and two continents -- just charmingly naive, is it not?

There is evidence for St Paul himself having long hair, if the vow Acts 18:18 speaks of is the Nazirite vow. St John the Baptist would probably have also never known a razor, either, given the obvious parallels of his life with that of Samson (though long hair is not explicitly mentioned in the passage, the wine statement implies that he would have been under life-long Nazirite restrictions). As well, the same book of Acts shows in 21: 23, 24 that Nazirite vows were still common enough in the Apostolic Church that Jerusalem had four men whose vows had just ended around the time of St Paul's return. A blanket condemnation of long hair on men seems out of place given that this was still a common practice at the time St Paul would be writing his epistles - it seems that if St Paul was speaking of long hair, he would have at least made some provisions for vows and so on.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »