[QUOTE=ISiddiqui18379373]
Paul meets all of them at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15).
[/QUOTE]
It says that he met with them to discuss a specific issue-whether new believers had to be circumcised to be saved. I doubt very much there was much cross-examination going on as to who’s Jesus Vision was real or not. Stuff like that just isn’t done very often.
It seems highly unlikely that they just talked about specific issues involving Gentiles (more than circumcision, btw… also food offered to idols, etc) and didn’t just chat about other stuff. I imagine that Paul’s vision would have to be somewhat addressed by the apostles before they let him pronounce on these things. Besides, the point spoke was making was that he would have seen the apostles and noticed if any of them had long hair and there may have been discussions as to why these folks were doing things that other Jews weren’t doing.
It’s simply another of the countless examples where the Bible flatly contradicts itself.
(Unless, of course, you’re fully indoctrinated in how to “understand” that these aren’t really contradictions, just confusion in the reader’s mind.)
Not to mention Spoke is throwing in possible ex-Biblical secret meetings with a live short-haired Jesus that isn’t mentioned anywhere else by anyone else, as far as I can tell.
How so? It’s only the Bible contradicting itself if the Bible itself says that Jesus has long hair.
Not the Jeebus specifically. AFAIK, every other mention of men’s hair emphasizes that it must be long, unshorn, “not rounded,” etc. …and along comes Paul railing that long hair on men looks faggy, or something.
Does it? Because when talking about Nazarines (those dedicated to God), it was ordered for them to not cut their hair… why order that if everyone couldn’t cut their hair?
And then in Ezekiel 44:20 (referring to priests):
Ummm, I’m going out on a limb here, but almost all of them? It was a Roman province, they didn’t exactly govern via email. Like, the mention of Jesus healing a Centurion’s servant? That Centurion would be a Roman, most likely, ditto for a lot of the occupying forces. And they’d have been spread throughout the provinces, in garrisons and other places - I mean, you know what Masada was *before *the Jewish Revolt, right?
That is not correct. Firstly, there is no reference to men having long hair in the New Testament. So Paul’s letter is in no way inconsistent with anything in the New Testament.
The Old Testament passage to which you seem to be referring is Leviticus 19:27. That passage says nothing about having “long, unshorn” hair. It does say not to round off the hair on your temples (i.e., your sideburns). I assume this is why Orthodox Jews grow the long sidelocks.
Except that is not what he’s doing, at least with respect to men’s hair. The Cited passage from I Corinthians is not some kind of jihad against long hair on men. Rather, Paul assumes that his audience finds long hair on men abhorrent, and uses that fact to make a different point. If his audience didn’t already find long hair on men “shameful,” his point wouldn’t make any sense.
I’m going to go all Occam’s Razor on the I Corinthians quote. I think Paul assumed his audience understood long hair to be shameful because his audience did find long hair shameful. I guess you could argue that instead people were actually wearing their hair long and Paul was trying to pull some kind of weird Jedi mind trick on them, but what is your evidence for that extraordinary claim?
Another point about the Nazirites, IIRC, is that they were forbidden from drinking wine, which doesn’t sound anything like the Jesus we know.
His point doesn’t make a whole lot of sense either way, to be honest. But yes, Paul assumes that his audience is on the same page with him about long hair. That doesn’t mean his assumption is correct, or is correct outside of a very specific context, or is considered uncontroversial to his audience. Or maybe he never wrote it at all.
I’m down with Occam’s Razor. I just don’t think there’s an explanation here that can clearly be called “most likely.”
Scumpup:
Albeit not as popular.
If the leader of a cult dies, I’d imagine one of the first things the cult members would do would be to start generating images of him to preserve his memory.
However, given the proscription on graven images of God, and the deification of Jesus, I suppose you could argue that the earliest Christians, those steeped in Jewish tradition, would have regarded images of Jesus as sacrilegious. Even so, I would imagine that people who had known Jesus personally would be eager to discuss him, and that Paul would have been eager to hear all they could tell him. If Jesus had been a long-hair, I think Paul would have known it.
I also think it would be odd, if Jesus had long hair, that none of his apostles would. And if any of his apostles did have long hair, why would Paul (having met them) call long hair shameful?
.
Because he was a delusional crank? An atheist would have to conclude that he did not see a vision of Jesus, therefore any message derived from such a “vision” was also delusional and sprang from the mind of no one but Paul himself.
Possibly, but the early Christians were expecting Jesus to return and the world to end in their lifetimes. If you expect to be one of the last generations on Earth, recording things for posterity probably isn’t a priority for you.
But would that discussion necessarily dwelt on what he looked like? I’d think that what he did and said would take precedence, but maybe not.
That’s a pretty good point, although I’m not personally ruling out the possibility Paul was just being a dick to them. I think the best argument for a short-haired Jesus, though, is that he lived in a desert region, and long hair is just fucking uncomfortable in hot, dusty places.
Where are you getting the idea that Paul’s ideas about appropriate hair length came from a vision?
I’m just trying to figure out from which visit with Jesus Spoke got the idea that he had short hair:
- The one on the road with the dead Jesus, where you would have to conclude Paul was delusional if you were an atheist. If he *was delusional, that throws a lot of what else he wrote into doubt.
- The secret meetings with Jesus before he died that no one, including Paul himself, has ever brought up before.
Sparking of graven images, Tenn was the last state to put your picture on your driver’s license. A few nutjobs objected due to their belief against graven images even when the image was their own picture.
Where has he said that Paul got the idea directly from Jesus at all?
paul was roman, so i would think what hair he had would be short. also he was fairly comfortable money wise, so he would be a bit more into appearance.
i don’t remember the other apostles being really interested in physical appearance or who was wearing what head covering.