FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Long hair for men-condemned?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
1 Corinthians 11 seems to discourage long hair for men, but didn't our Lord have long hair himself? What does the chapter mean? I know it reffers to a specifc type of hair dress that symbolized honosexuality in 1st century Corinth, but beyond that?
ive been waiting for rosairum to answer this
[Image: classic-jesus.jpg]
Does it really mention long hair?  The D-R just says nourish...that sounds like spend hours in the bathroom with tons of hair product and a blow dryer or hair iron...aka, primping like a girl.
Underdog Wrote:Does it really mention long hair?  The D-R just says nourish...that sounds like spend hours in the bathroom with tons of hair product and a blow dryer or hair iron...aka, primping like a girl.

The DR is a translation of a translation of a translation. It's literally three languages and thousands of years removed from the pen of the Prophet.
(12-11-2010, 10:48 PM)Credo Wrote: [ -> ]
Underdog Wrote:Does it really mention long hair?  The D-R just says nourish...that sounds like spend hours in the bathroom with tons of hair product and a blow dryer or hair iron...aka, primping like a girl.

The DR is a translation of a translation of a translation. It's literally three languages and thousands of years removed from the pen of the Prophet.

If we're talking about the NT, it's only a translation of a translation. Greek to Latin to English.
I used to wear the "short ceasar cut" but buzz it now, it's so much more convenient...I don't have to worry about bedhead ever again!
(12-11-2010, 11:47 PM)Resurrexi Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-11-2010, 10:48 PM)Credo Wrote: [ -> ]The DR is a translation of a translation of a translation. It's literally three languages and thousands of years removed from the pen of the Prophet.

If we're talking about the NT, it's only a translation of a translation. Greek to Latin to English.

I thought there were supposedly two Latin translations of the New Testament in the process of getting the Greek to the English—or at least a revision of a prior Latin translation by St. Jerome.  Isn't that how come the panem quotidianum in the Mass differs from the panem supersubstantialem in the Vulgate?  I'm by no means certain on this point, but maybe that’s what Credo was referring to.

I do think he meant to say “the Apostle,” though, and not “the Prophet.”  ;D
(12-12-2010, 12:46 AM)Gilgamesh Wrote: [ -> ]I thought there were supposedly two Latin translations of the New Testament in the process of getting the Greek to the English—or at least a revision of a prior Latin translation by St. Jerome.  Isn't that how come the panem quotidianum in the Mass differs from the panem supersubstantialem in the Vulgate?  I'm by no means certain on this point, but maybe that’s what Credo was referring to.

At least for the Gospels, St. Jerome certainly did revise the existing the already existing Vetus Latina translation (or, rather, collection of translations), but even the Vetus Latin was still a direct translation from the Greek.

As an interesting side note, quotes from the Vetus Latina are frequently used in the liturgy. That's why we have "Quasi modo .  .  ." as the introit for Low Sunday when 1 Peter 2:2 begins with "Sicut modo" in the Vulgate. It's also why we hear so much about Palestrina's "Sicut cervus" when Psalm 41 in the Vulgate's Gallican Psalter beings, "Quemadmodum desiderat cervus".
(12-11-2010, 11:23 AM)Credo Wrote: [ -> ][Image: classic-jesus.jpg]

You of all people should know that modern scholarship has concluded that a 1st century Jew living in the Holy Land probably would have looked more like this:

[Image: 22895d1259869154-there-3-good-arguments-...us_bbc.jpg]
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5