1 Corinthians 11:14-15 “14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

1 Corinthians 11:14-15 “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.”

Don’t try to tell me they had a different definition of short, or that shoulder length meant short. Many of these paintings have longer hair than that anyway. People in the days of the new testament knew was short hair was, Romans around them had short hair. What is long and whats short is obvious. All these paintings of Jesus obviously have long hair. If you say thats short, then what the hell is long hair? At what specific length does it become long? Why would Paul say his savior’s hair was a shame?

Attached: 349BCF94-95E4-48BD-BF3E-21132E684B19.jpg (1600x1312, 374K)

Those aren't photographs, genius.

Catholic “saints” have claimed to have visions of Jesus (with long hair) and the Orthodox claim their paintings of Jesus are very accurate becayse they are copies of copies of an original ancient portrait

Christ's hair is shoulder length on the Shroud of Turin

>ignores all these verses and the argument for muh relic

The shroud is a hoax anyway. Not only does it contradict long hair being condemend in the bible, no jew was that tall. And its been debunked several other ways.

wrong

Attached: Shroud_of_Turin.png (1292x8757, 3.91M)

Again, not addressing the argument I made.

The Bible never describes Jesus's appearance, except in a prophecy in Isiah, where it says he would be ugly. None of these portraits matter

Another retard not addressing my argument. Why do Catholics and Orthodox draw paintings of a Jesus with long hair if this verse is in the bible? And what about visions from saints who saw a Jesus with long hair?

Because you're onto the truth and trad-cath/Ortho larpers are unwitting shills for the Antichrist, who is pictured in the icons you post.

Longer hair and beard provide a stronger connection to your heavenly Father. Hairs and nails undergo a growth process until they reach their maximum, so perhaps your perception may shift as it slows down and ultimately stops.

Jesus, Buddha, prophets, druids, Vril maidens, warriors, all had long hair. That's why Indjuns would take your scalp and modern soldiers have buzzcuts.

That is not an argument. How do people who claim to believe the bible and believe Jesus had long hair reconcile 1 Corinthians 11:14?

Because Catholics and Orthodox are retarded
What more of an explanation is there?

Jesus will always look like those Greeks that look like Zues.

Old short hair is long hair today.

Obviously you don't have idea of what constitues as long and short hair
Shoulder length today can count as long but back when Bible was written, it wouldn't
Women were expected to at the very least have their hair reach their knees, only around that length it would count as being long
Anything less would be considered medium or short
The point of this passage is not to shame men with hair a bit longer than a buzzcut, it is to shame men who actively want to look like women and women who actively want to look like men

Attached: DrEB4DmU8AALTJy.jpg (1440x1920, 323K)

Because Saul (not Paul) is a fraud, wasn't one of the original twelve, and made shit up as he went for the sole purpose of subverting the goyim. Jow Forums is not ready for the redpill that Christianity was always meant for Jews, not them, and that Saul, an agent of the Sanhedrin, spread and changed Christianity in order to subvert and destroy the Roman Empire by recruiting dumb goyim foot soldiers and tax slaves for the Jewish cause. Saul literally fucking worked for the very same Jewish authority that attacked the empire in 70 CE, and was subsequently executed for it on the charge of subversion. JUST A COINCIDENCE THOUGH I'M SURE.

Paul was a faggot & not even a real apostle

It's laughable that his Epistles are considered scripture

You obviously didn't read my first post, dumbass. They knew what short hair was, the romans had real short hair. At what length does this "short hair" on these paintings become long hair? And many other paintings of Jesus have even LONGER hair. Don't you realize the problem with this?

He says, does not nature itself teach you, not God. I think he's merely referring to impracticality of longer hair. You know why women grow their hair?

Okay Achmed

Of course the Bible is against long hair and these depictions of Jesus are disgusting remnants of paganism. Long hair to our pagan ancestors was considered a sign of freedom and when their hair was cut and their penises circumcized it showed we became willing servants of God.

Paul never met jesus.

Jesus is called the nazarene or nazarite. Nazarites don't cut their hair. A vow. Thus, he is clasically represented with long hair since the beggining of christianity.

Here, mystery solved, you can delete your thread now.

Tell that to Samson

Fucking brainlet

>Women were expected to at the very least have their hair reach their knees,
Source?
And don't you realize the problem with this "x length is long" argument? What if a man had hair that was 1 inch above his knees, would that be okay? A half inch? The bible didn't give a specific length for this exact reason. Because God knew people would be trying to go right on the line. Whats short is obvious and whats long is obvious.

Would Paul really call his savior's hair a shame?

I follow the gospels not Paul. Jesus never said that and plenty OT accounts of men having long hair. I say this and my hair is short.

If you are catholics, you do realize your church recognizes this book as scripture right?

Clearly it's not obvious to you because you seem to be forgetting the historical context and applying the standards of modern society instead

I’m starting to come to this same conclusion the more I research.

There is an obvious distinction between male and female hairstyles
The gradient fallacy of "how many inches" doesnt apply in this case
I will maintain my previous post, however. Catholics and Orthodox are retarded

Do you really believe that any of those painters had any idea what Jesus looked like? Pic related is the first ever picture of Jesus. It is dated around 200AD.

Of course you follow Paul. Every Christian follows Paul, because without Paul there would be no Christianity, it would be just another Jewish sect.

Attached: url.jpg (552x645, 271K)

Like I said, Jow Forums isn't ready for the truth.

Read the book of Acts, written by Luke. Paul is mentioned as an apostle, says he saw Christ, and is important to scripture

Good thing I’m not a Catholic. Their doctrine is laughable m8. Papal infallibility? Mary worship? The list goes on.

>if you dont agree with everything I say, you're just not ready
Did the Koran teach you that?

Jesus was from Nazareth but he was not a Nazarite in the old testament sense. Nothing in the bible says he was. Jesus drank wine and touched dead bodies, which would have been forbidden if he was a Nazarite. Ignorant dumbass.

They're partially right though. Christianity was initially meant for the jews and jesus himself said that.
The only reason we got a pass is because the jews killed jesus and denounced him.

see

He disbelieved your claim that the shroud is a hoax, and his entire image goes to prove that refutation, so I think he did argue with you.

Golly gee wizz, maybe he had long hair and it was shameful but nobody gave a flying fuck because he was Jesus and did a whole ton of shit that went against societal norms of the time. You're going to get hung up over a sentence about hair length? Are you absolutely fucking retarded? Literally NOBODY on this planet gives a shit about what you're talking about.

"Oh hey guys he had long hair but Paul said long hair was dumb, PACK IT IN, RELIGIONS DONE, BOYS! It's all over, didn't you hear, HIS HAIR WAS LONG BUT PAUL SAID LONG HAIR WAS DUMB, sheeeeeeeeeeit."

Christianity is simply Paulinism.
The Jewish sect of Christianity, aka the real Christianity, was led by James, not Paul. James' church was annihilated by the Romans in 70 CE, leaving only Paulinism. Ergo, yes you do worship Paul.

Attached: 1552402884389.jpg (720x398, 53K)

See the post directly above yours

Ok but from my understanding Paul declared himself an apostle and like was just parroting this. Didn’t Jesus say if any man say I am there or I am here do not believe him? Almost as if he was warning us of Paul.

Jesus went to the Gentiles even before the Crucifixion tho.
Most criticisms of Paul are either from Gnostics or Muslims

Not an argument. How could Jesus have long hair if scripture says it was a shame. That would be blasphemy. What if scripture said "if somebody heals the blind it's a shame"?

If I only follow the gospels and the gospel of the holy 12 writings and none of the books Paul wrote how exactly am I following Paul?

The Corinthians were fucking degenerate.

The anti christcuck shilling is getting breddy glever. I avow.

That the image is bullshit, because STURP never explained how is it possible that the part of the shroud that was cut for carbon analysis isn't from the original material. How come they didn't notice when they were cutting it?

Samson didn't exist it's a Jewish psyop

>totally ignores the post he replies to and the points made in it, and the source asked for

Not an argument

Yes. It's not a big deal. He's Jesus. Jesus wouldn't care. Read the fucking bible and understand the man whose religion you're arguing about, here. Or better yet, go outside and get a McRib or something, dude.

McRib is unclean and you know it

Why is he so perfect bros

Are you so absolutely stone-cold stupid that you can't tell the absolute difference between HAVING LONG HAIR and HEALING THE BLIND? These two things are the same to you?

I'm not going to spend my time reading all of that. Deferring to a long image with text you didn't write for your argument shows you have none. He did not address my argument at all.

b8

I don't know. Long hair is shameful before men, not before God. Hobo looking ass motherfuckers should be in solitude somewhere in the wilderness, not in public. It was shameful in Rome because it was seen as barbaric, or gay af if tou kept the hair but not the beard. You ccould physically submit those individuals more easily, hence the impracticality.

the real Christianity, was led by James, not Paul. James' church was annihilated by the Romans in 70 CE

Who decides what is "real" Christianity?

So you're telling me that scripture has blasphemy in it? YOU are stone-cold stupid. A man writing under inspiration of the holy ghost would not call Jesus' appearance a shame. That is RETARDED

Imagine living a completely holy life but some faggot named Paul says you can’t have long hair so you have to go to hell cus you have long hair.

Is that what the verse says? No, it doesn't. It just says it's a shame.

It was written by Paul, a normal human being like you and me who was set in a particular time and a particular culture. He read books too. He formed certain opinions of his own.

Why do atheists always seem to think that inspired writing is some magical process... people getting zapped by some force who then start to do some automatical writing? That's not what inspired writing is.

I swear, most atheists bashing the bible are in fact bashing their own misconceived notions they project onto it.

Attached: 245436457586.jpg (250x246, 12K)

>It's shameful because I say so
>t. paul

What if the books Paul wrote ARE blasphemy? It doesn’t negate the rest

>It was written by Paul, a normal human being like you and me who was set in a particular time and a particular culture.

Paul claimed that Jesus spoke directly to him.

Lots of people claim that

This thread is directed to catholics, orthodox, and others who both believe 1. The bible is God's word 2. Jesus had long hair

>Why would Paul say his savior’s hair was a shame?
Saint Paul never met Jesus, you Pr*otestant.

It ain't blasphemy if it's true. If his appearance was a shame, it was a shame. Literally nobody cares, Jesus included. It's not a religion based on a man's appearance. You're obviously not a Christian, you've never been around Christians, you have absolutely no idea how Christianity works. You're holding Christianity to the laws of some other religion. You're arguing this like it's Islam. You can draw pictures of Jesus, dude. You can even make him asian or black if you want. Christians don't care. It's not that kind of religion.

I do believe the Bible is gods word just not the books of paul

Why would scripture that your church claims to believe in call the Son of God's appearance a shame?

Well yeah, except that this guy was responsible for the creation of Christianity as we know it, so you better hope he wasn't bullshitting.

Yes, did he continuously speak to him... as in, all the time, non-stop? If Jesus spoke to you, and you would write down your experiences and wrote letters to all sorts of communities, organizing the faith... would that only be about your mystical experiences, or would it include a lot of practicalities, commentaries on society, etc, etc, etc?

Use your brain man, come on.

Long hair was past the shoulders... It's really that simple. "for her hair is given her for a covering" Covering her body idiot.

Attached: 1550705905980.jpg (250x201, 12K)

Aren't there verses in the gospels outside the Pauline epistles which talk about salvation for gentiles? I understand Jesus never preached to the gentiles, but wasn't it understood that after the Jews rejected him and killed him that the gentiles could believe in him and be saved?

1. I am a christian.
2. Jesus was sinless. If scripture condemns long hair, Jesus did not have long hair. It's not that hard to understand. But you have an emotional attachment to a Jesus with long hair wearing a dress, so you have to use mental gymnastics. The bible says long hair on men is a shame. It makes no sense if you consider that scripture but also believe Jesus had long hair.

We're answering you but it's like your head is full of mud and rocks, with little bits of poop that can only be known to exist because of the smell which comes from your ears.

>Long hair was past the shoulders
Source?
"for her hair is given her for a covering" Doesn't shoulder length hair cover your head? You're an idiot.

Not an argument.

They were Epicureans and put rich Corinthian leather in their chariots.
Paul was a killjoy.

If you're a Christian than go ask Jesus you dumb-ass. Why are you even here?

I thought Jesus/Yahushua dying on the cross created Christianity? If he’s not bullshitting why does he contradict Jesus teachings so much? Why does everyone over ride the teachings of Jesus by quoting Paul? Something ain’t right m8

Mate I'm at the point where I've begun re-typing exact sentences I have already posted. If you can't listen then we can't talk to you.

Also Revelation 2:2 warns about Paul I believe:
I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars

You're not answering my questions. Jesus was sinless. If you think something being "a shame" is not obviously a sin, you're retarded and i'm done talking to you. You have an emotional attachment to a long haired Jesus in a dress, and resort to mental gymnastics.

>be Saul
>have cushy job as a torturer and executioner for the Pharisees
>then one day, in a genuis plan to subvert the goyim, who are at this point a minor sect and no threat to the Pharisees, join the very same group you were dedicated to wiping out
>spend the rest of your life in poverty and persecution helping to spread the message of the group you were dedicated to wiping out
>ensure the group you were dedicated to wiping out takes root, a group which until the last century has universally despised the Pharisees
>die alone in prison
>2,000 years later a Scripturally-illiterate edgelord on Jow Forums thinks you're a bad guy because "le Jews are bad" may may
No matter how many times I've seen his logic presented it still baffles me how foolish it is

Attached: Fucking WHY.jpg (300x287, 66K)

>Yes, did he continuously speak to him... as in, all the time, non-stop?
Of course not. But how do you tell what comes from Jesus and what comes from Paul? Heck, the old testament is filled with God talking about practicalities.

>I thought Jesus/Yahushua dying on the cross created Christianity?
That wasn't Christianity as we know it today. Before Paul, it was just a Jewish cult.
> Why does everyone over ride the teachings of Jesus by quoting Paul?
We have no idea which (if any) of Jesus's teaching from the gospels are authentic or not.

> Doth not even nature itself teach you

I would like to draw some attention to this absolute fail that the argument rests upon.

In nature, it has been observed since ancient times that male animals are enobled by their luxurious hair:

>the male lions mane
>the peacocks tail
>me

Sure, let's agree to disagree. I don't think that calling long hair "a shame" is the same as saying having long hair is "a sin". I don't even know how somebody could come to that conclusion. It seems ridiculous. Is English not your first language?

> Doth not even nature itself teach you

You forgot the rest of the verse you hopeless dumbass. It says " Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, IT IS A SHAME UNTO HIM?

So let me get this straight. slSince you have no idea whether any of Jesus teachings in the Bible are real you choose to follow what Paul says instead?

Yes, virtually all of the letters of the Apostles were written to gentile Christians

So according to Paul, Samson was a shame?

that's badass

CAtholics ignore half the bible and worship idols against gods commandments. you expect them to give a shit about jesus hair?
They call Mary the mother of God for fuck sake.

>you choose to follow what Paul says instead?

I'm not a Christian m8. But yeah, I'd trust Paul over the gospels because Paul at least had to defend his teachings before the original apostles. After almost the entire Jewish community got wiped out, the gospels writers could write just about whatever they wanted.

Yes it is my first language. Is it yours?

Attached: Screen Shot 2019-05-24 at 12.45.23 PM.png (761x521, 83K)

Catholics are under a strong delusion and need to renounce and repent of Catholicism

dude what? that is explained. fabric was sown onto the edges during medieval restoration. BTFO