It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Did The Apostles Of Jesus Wear Tonsure's?

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 12:28 PM
link   
Among many other rituals of various cultures was the wearing of a tonsure which varied according to the order of its theology. I realize that the Greek and Roman tonsures were different as well as the ancient Celts or British. The British tonsure was styled after the ancient Druids while Roman tonsure is said to have originated from the Apostles of Jesus.

My interest is that of the Roman tonsure because of its claim that it originated from the Apostles of Jesus. The Roman church had various orders and various tonsure’s and I find that very interesting that this practice in the Roman Church ceased in 1973. My question is how did it start and why was it stopped?

It is claimed by the Roman Catholic Church that their use of a tonsure originated from the Apostles of Jesus. Paul shaved his head completely? [Acts 18:18] but it is not clear that this was a tonsure or a unconnected vow. Tradition tells us that Peter and John wore their tonsure’s in different manners but I find no scriptures to verify that. Tradition also tells us that James the brother of Jesus wore his tonsure as the Nasi of the Nazarene movement but still nothing of certainty in scripture.

Even the custom of Jewish males wearing a kippah is somewhat more of a mystery than that of any scripture and yet Saul/Paul being a rabbi chose to be shorn instead of the custom of a kippah. ATS, what do you have on this subject?




posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Seede

Just dropping some links to give a broader context that might help explain your query , ..First its important to dig into the mindset of the day some 2000 years ago . Just what did they think about hair . The link to a podcast by Dr.Micheal Heiser sheds some light on the subject by looking into the head covering in 1st Corinthians 11:10 11:13-15 www.nakedbiblepodcast.com...

This one kicks off a series of topical episodes now that we’ve finished Leviticus. It’s a topic I’ve been asked to do many times, since I’ve alluded to the fact that the meaning of this passage takes us back to Genesis 6 (1 Cor 11:10 – “because of the angels”). The focus of the episode is the work of Troy Martin, whose work in Greco-Roman medical texts has profound explanatory power for understanding the intellectual worldview for the head covering language of 1 Cor 11.



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Seede
Some of those traditions may result from a misreading of the Nazarite vow.
The Nazarite vow (Numbers ch6) was not about cutting the hair and keeping it cut. It was about keeping free from sin during a specified period, and then cutting off and offering to God all the hair grown during that period.
Samson was not supposed to cut his hair at all, because his version of the vow was for life.
Paul helped to pay for some Nazirites to make their offering in Jerusalem- Acts ch21 vv23-26.
What he did in ch18 could have been a version of the same vow. If so, he was showing his rebellious streak by not doing it through the priests in Jerusalem. He would think that was not necessary.



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 02:13 PM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

Thank you the2ofusr1 - Appreciate your input and did miss the 1st Corinthians scripture.



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Seede

Did you happen to listen to the podcast linked ?



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 02:40 PM
link   
Shaving the head was not a holy thing in that area. Long hair was supposedly considered Holy by the Jewish people, only the holy ones could have hair that was uncut. There were monks up in the areas way north of there that shaved their heads, They were not the same as what Jesus would have been under, he would have had long hair I think, just like the pictures and statues of him did throughout the ages.

There were limits of who could have long hair throughout most cultures around the world.



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 04:49 PM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI


Some of those traditions may result from a misreading of the Nazarite vow. Text

I agree and that is probably where I got confused.

My rabbi is teaching me that Acts 18;18 is a tonsure. I disagree with his premise that it is a tonsure and I agree that is a vow.

The rabbi teaches that Paul's being shaved was Paul's tonsure but then a tonsure is a custom of certain cultures such as the Roman Cathoilic Church and Church of Britain. How can this be a tonsure and yet the scriptures tell us that Paul's account was a vow?

How can you explain that the Apostles of Jesus had various tonsures and the RCC was taught this custom by the Apostles of Jesus? Yet the same Roman Catholic Organization then disavows this custom in 1973? Would that not show that a tonsure is not a Nazarite vow? Am I reading too much in this?



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 04:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Seede
I agree that the tonsure and the Nazirite vow are different things. The Nazirite vow demanded a complete shaving which would be a single event (unless the person undertook a fresh vow to grow his hair again). The tonsure is an incomplete shaving which is kept permanent. Hardly the same thing at all.

I think the people who are trying to justify the tonsure on Biblical grounds have got a very weak case. It is a human tradition, nothing more.





edit on 1-2-2017 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 07:05 PM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

Being a Nazarite, Jesus only cut his hair once a year when it was around shoulders length, then along with other Nazarite men they would toss their locks into a fire. It was part of the culture and belief system back then which is why Jesus gained popularity In The sixties for having been a hippie.
edit on 1-2-2017 by JesusXst because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 08:07 PM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1


Text Did you happen to listen to the podcast linked ?

Yes I did and I agree with most all of the podcast. I guess my entire problem is the separation of an ordinance, or a custom.

I could understand a custom within a structure compared with a law within that same structure but in this case I am not understanding what a tonsure really is. If it is part of a liturgy then I could understand but there is no uniformity in the Roman Catholic Church on a tonsure. It simply jumps all over the place willy nilly with no respect to uniformity.

I understood the Church of England adopting the Druidic priesthood tonsure and it is uniform throughout the British kingdom. Also their tonsure is not claimed to have been taken from the apostles of Jesus and in fact the church of the Britain's was organized much sooner than the Roman Catholic Church.

My entire interest is in reference to the Apostolic Synagogue of James. Where is the evidence that the apostles of Jesus had tonsure's? The Roman Catholic Church claims their custom of tonsure's came directly from James and the apostles of Christ Jesus. For over 1,700 years this custom was enforced through apostolic order and then suddenly in 1973 it was nullified. How can any portion of Christianity change the rules without just cause?
Thanks again for you info.



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 08:16 PM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI


Text I think the people who are trying to justify the tonsure on Biblical grounds have got a very weak case. It is a human tradition, nothing more.

I believe you are totally correct DISRAELI. I truly dislike to disagree with my rabbi but a mistake is a mistake regardless of who is involved. Thanks for your input. I truly appreciate you.



new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join