I am invested in the only actual evidence on the subject presented in this thread.
I don’t think so. For example, you keep ignoring the facts presented that indicate that “short” may have meant shoulder length or longer.
Wait, da Vinci painted Jesus as a Pict? With the early tartan of Gunn over his shoulder?
Which “facts” are those?
I don’t think Paul was lying. I think Paul had temporal lobe epilepsy. I’m sure he believed he met post-resurrection Jesus and knew what he wanted.
No, I addressed this above.
An rabid animal rigjhts advocate might argue::
“You accept that people who have pet cats should have to take care of them. You support jail sentences for people who torture or kill pet cats because you know that cats feel pain and distress. Cattle also feel pain and distress therefore cattle in slaughterhouses feel distress and people shouldn’t be allowed to kill cattle.”
Even the most ardent PETA member could make that argument. They may not believe that people *should *be allowed to keep pets, but that is irrelevant. It is an argument meant to illustrate the principal behind one position by appealing to a point that you know the listener will accept.
Paul is not being dishonest when he says “You accept that men always have short hair, and for the same reason women should wear headscarves.” He is being perfectly honest. His audience *does * accept that, and it *is *the same principal that requires women to cover their heads. Just because he believes that men need not have short hair doesn’t invalidate this point, any more than believing that people shouldn’t have pets invalidates an argument against cruelty based on knowledge that pets feel pain.
Just because I believe that some other principal means that keeping pets should be outlawed doesn’t mean that my argument against eating meat is flawed or dishonest. I really do believe that you keep pet cats. I really do believe that cats and cows feel pain the same way. I really do believe the same principal is why we shouldn’t eat cows. None of this is dishonest.
Just because Paul believed that some other principal meant that men with long hair was acceptable, that doesn’t mean that his argument in favour of headscarves is flawed or dishonest. He really did believe that the Corinthians men naturally ahd short hair. He really did believe that women and men were different. He really did believe the same principal is why women should wear headscarves. None of this is dishonest. He really did believe that
As is your position or any other.
No! This is rank speculation, unsupported by any actual evidence.
The fact that women’s hair at the time was usually worn waist length or so. So - shorter than women’s hair could easily mean shoulder length or longer.
Hey, I think I found a Roman bust of Jesus.
He does not say “You accept that men always have short hair.” He says “Does not nature itself teach you that long hair is a shame to a man?”
So you either have to accept that Paul really believed that, or you have to speculate that he was lying to make a point.
I think you do not understand the concept of evidence.
Cite?
Yes.
We have to accept that Paul believed that.
Well for one thing it is a bit hard to dry someone’s feet with your hair if it is only shoulder length - wouldn’t you say?
Here are some more early images of Jesus. Looks like his hair doesn’t start getting long until the 4th century.
Terr, we have lots of examples of Roman artwork which demonstrate what was regarded as “short” hair in the Roman era.
“He is shown as a blonde with pronounced cleft chin, shoulder-length hair,…Note Christ is portrayed with shoulder-length hair,…Below, Christ, without moustache and beard, with shoulder-length hair,…Below, Christ crucified, with moustache, beard and shoulder-length hair;”
and that website has a bias:This website embraces the Anthropological view that man has created his gods in his own image. …Why Jesus Christ cannot be the Messiah
here’s a unbiased site:
But in any case, people tended then, as now, to depict Jesus to look like an idealized male. Romans often depicted Him as beardless with shorter hair, others with a beard and longer hair.
Your evidence from Paul only show Jesus likely had shorter hair than women did.
Paul actually had long hair for a while, since he quite possibly took the Nazarite vow: A*nother place we see this word is in Acts 18:18,
“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.”
Here we see that Paul had taken the Nazarite vow. Those who took the Nazarite vow (both men and women) were required to cut off all of their hair at its completion (Num 6:18; cf. 6:2, 6:5), not simply trim it. *actseighteen.com
http://www.pauls-post-crucifixion-temple-sacrifices.info/pauls-nazirite-vow-acts-
And those images with shoulder-length hair come from the 4th Century, as I said. You don’t see images of a long-haired Jesus before the 4th Century.
Incidentally, long-haired Jesus bears a suspicious resemblance to the Greco-Egyptian god Serapis.
Another example of Christianity co-opting elements from pagan traditions to ease the transition to the new faith?
Just happened across this article from Slate: Did a lot of men have flowing locks in ancient Judea?
It hits a lot of the same points we’ve covered, and adds a couple:
Also, the wiki article on Serapis mentions that the cult of Serapis was forcibly suppressed in the 4th century. Perhaps not coincidentally, this is when the first images of a long-haired, bearded Jesus seem to emerge.
.
Are we also imagining that Young lived in an era before steam-powered travel, photography, the printing press, and the telegram? Because otherwise, I think we’re running into way to many major, fundamental differences between the two scenarios for this analogy to make any sense.
But I think you’ve proven your point through other arguments in the last few posts. “Jesus: not a hippie” is my vote now.