How long was Jesus' hair?

  • Thread starter Thread starter SANxJONERO
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
SANxJONERO said:
Well it matters, because if Jesus had long hair then the bible is talking bad about him.
Click to expand...
Um, no it isn’t. You’re Catholic; thus, you should be aware that Scripture is inerrant. Because of its inerrant nature, we can be assured that
  1. it does not speak ill of Jesus, and
  2. if it appears to speak ill of Jesus in a given verse, there is something wrong with our understanding of that verse, so
  3. we should trust the Church’s interpretation or those of learned Catholic Scripture scholars.
For what it’s worth, “long” hair (as someone pointed out in another post) is subjective. Men in Europe often had what we would now consider “long” hair – shoulder length – during the Renaissance, for instance, but the women had even *loooonger *hair.

Any biblical prohibitions on men having long hair are clearly meant as a warning against gender bending through blurring the lines in men’s and women’s appearances.

Peace,
Dante
 
TheDoctor said:
I see you are fairly new here. Good forum etiquette is that when you assert something (like “In the bible Peter states that a man should be ashamed of himself if he has long hair”) and especially when you reference scripture is to give the book, chapter and verse you are referencing. It helps us to know which version of the Bible you are reading and if you are quoting out of context or not.
Click to expand...
Well I’ve been here for about 13 months, but I guess you can say that is fairly new. Obviously it’s from the bible, since you asked me which verse & I told you I don’t remember. Sorry if that’s not good etiquette to you, but I’m sure someone could have put it up for me if it was really all that necessary. I’m sure the verse is that same in any holy bible & I would like to see how this could be taken out of context if it was.
 
DanteAlighieri said:
Um, no it isn’t. You’re Catholic; thus, you should be aware that Scripture is inerrant. Because of its inerrant nature, we can be assured that
  1. it does not speak ill of Jesus, and
  2. if it appears to speak ill of Jesus in a given verse, there is something wrong with our understanding of that verse, so
  3. we should trust the Church’s interpretation or those of learned Catholic Scripture scholars.
For what it’s worth, “long” hair (as someone pointed out in another post) is subjective. Men in Europe often had what we would now consider “long” hair – shoulder length – during the Renaissance, for instance, but the women had even *loooonger *hair.

Any biblical prohibitions on men having long hair are clearly meant as a warning against gender bending through blurring the lines in men’s and women’s appearances.

Peace,
Dante
Click to expand...
OK thanks
 
Big_Ro said:
Please understand, I’m no expert. There was another thread a couple of days ago asking a similar question. As I said then and I’ll say again. The bible has a physical description of Christ. I don’t think it specifically addresses his hair length, but it does describe it as being like wool. Also, I have seen several, to say the least, documentaries on Christ and the early iconography depicts Christ with short hair. I think some early paintings also depict him smiling, but I could be wrong about that.

At the end of the day, I think it’s an interesting subject and worth looking into. I assume that since we know the birthplace of Christ (Bethlehem) which is in the middle east, we should be able to reasonably assume that he looked like most people native to that region today. Probably somewhat dark skinned, with curly and probably course hair. Unfortunately, I think this makes some people uncomfortable for reasons beyond me.

Good thread. Peace be with you.
Click to expand...
Can’t generalize: the land was overrun for centuries by peoples of many races and descriptions. The present population has grown from a rather narrow stock. Judging from the graves of the period, though, the First Century Jews were typical Mediterranean stock. As to length of hair, most wore it short, but certain religious groups did not cut their hair. We know nothing about our Lord’s life for 18 years.
 
\ I thought the shroud had been debunked? No matter\

**While C14 tests made 20 years ago say that it dates only to the 12-1400’s or so, there are reports by textile experts that suggest that the samples were skewed by being combinations of the original Shroud AND patches of later cloth that were affixed to it by a procedure called French re-weaving.

My comment on the C14 tests compared with the studies of STURP in 1978 (which draw a different conclusion) is this:

The miracles of Jesus always defied being categorized during His earthly lifetime. Was it really a blind man healed, or someone who just looked like him–thus contemporaries argued. Was it a thunder, an angel, or God Himself who spoke to Jesus and was heard by the bystanders? They couldn’t agree among themselves at the time.

If the Shroud is really what it is reputed to be, should it surprise us that it defies neatly fitting into scientific tests, or behaving inconsistently in the laboratory? (I’ve learned that God dislikes being pinned down.)

Even if the Shroud is a work of art, HOW was the image produced, especially one showing such natural and heretofore unknown anatomical details?

I would still venerate it, if not as a Holy Relic, as an icon of the Crucified and Risen Savior.

In any case, I believed in Jesus before I had even HEARD there was a Shroud of Turin.**

Therefore, the description in Revelations should be a reasonably accurate description of Christ before the resurrection.

Actually, it’s a vision of Christ in the FULLNESS of His Divinity shining through His Resurrected, glorified human body–AFTER the Resurrection.
 
adam3809 said:
Hello,

Jesus would not of had long hair at all. In fact, his hair would have been short. It is historical fact that during the time of Jesus and in his location the only men who indeed would of had long hair were Homosexuals. While I did my undergrad in history I took several near east courses and heard this several time I was kind of shocked. I than looked it up and and found it was indeed true. The only reason we know him to have long hair today is do to the art of the middle ages and renaissance. They simply used the common hair style for men during that time which was long hair. Jesus had short hair not long.
Click to expand...
When has Jesus ever worried about trends, though? People! Don’t let my previous post go over your heads! Jesus spent fourty days in the desert before He started His ministry, remember? It was probably kept short during His prior years, but I truly believe He died with long hair!
 
SANxJONERO said:
Well I’ve been here for about 13 months, but I guess you can say that is fairly new. Obviously it’s from the bible, since you asked me which verse & I told you I don’t remember. Sorry if that’s not good etiquette to you, but I’m sure someone could have put it up for me if it was really all that necessary. I’m sure the verse is that same in any holy bible & I would like to see how this could be taken out of context if it was.
Click to expand...
What the other member was trying to say to you was that when you make a claim, be it scriptural or otherwise, then it is your obligation to back it up, if asked. One does not make a claim, then tell others to verify it. That is the same courtesy and credibility expected anywhere.
 
Chatter163 said:
What the other member was trying to say to you was that when you make a claim, be it scriptural or otherwise, then it is your obligation to back it up, if asked. One does not make a claim, then tell others to verify it. That is the same courtesy and credibility expected anywhere.
Click to expand...
Like I said, it was in the bible obviously. Sorry if I couldn’t pin point the exact page for the don’t knows.
 
This thread has gone on way too long and I can think of only one thing to say at this point:

WHAT UTTER DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE:confused::confused::confused::confused::confused:
 
bpbasilphx said:
\ I thought the shroud had been debunked? No matter\

**While C14 tests made 20 years ago say that it dates only to the 12-1400’s or so, there are reports by textile experts that suggest that the samples were skewed by being combinations of the original Shroud AND patches of later cloth that were affixed to it by a procedure called French re-weaving.

My comment on the C14 tests compared with the studies of STURP in 1978 (which draw a different conclusion) is this:

The miracles of Jesus always defied being categorized during His earthly lifetime. Was it really a blind man healed, or someone who just looked like him–thus contemporaries argued. Was it a thunder, an angel, or God Himself who spoke to Jesus and was heard by the bystanders? They couldn’t agree among themselves at the time.

If the Shroud is really what it is reputed to be, should it surprise us that it defies neatly fitting into scientific tests, or behaving inconsistently in the laboratory? (I’ve learned that God dislikes being pinned down.)

Even if the Shroud is a work of art, HOW was the image produced, especially one showing such natural and heretofore unknown anatomical details?

I would still venerate it, if not as a Holy Relic, as an icon of the Crucified and Risen Savior.

In any case, I believed in Jesus before I had even HEARD there was a Shroud of Turin.**

Therefore, the description in Revelations should be a reasonably accurate description of Christ before the resurrection.

Actually, it’s a vision of Christ in the FULLNESS of His Divinity shining through His Resurrected, glorified human body–AFTER the Resurrection.
Click to expand...
Grace and Peace,

Was it not a know practice among the Orthodox that there was ‘replica’ Shrouds throughout the Eastern Empire? If you are familiar with this could you offer me a book or author who presents this material.

Thank you and God Bless.
 
The Bible says it is shameful for a man to have long hair, that’s why everyone refuses to believe Jesus had long hair. Because **they themselves **find it shameful. (hippy-styled)
But Jesus was a meek and humble man. Hair doesn’t shame His glory :bowdown2:
 
SANxJONERO said:
I like that some of that Priest’s videos, but I caught a different video not that long ago on how people tryed to say there was new evidence of the shroad being fraud & some people showed that they didn’t do a good job in getting “evidence”.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I marked that as my favorite also, in my shroud of Turin study. That’s what messed up the radiocarbondating was being tampered with in the 6th century. The only evidence against the shroud was carbon14dating. And now we know why.
 
\Was it not a know practice among the Orthodox that there was ‘replica’ Shrouds throughout the Eastern Empire? If you are familiar with this could you offer me a book or author who presents this material.\

**There is indeed a special icon on cloth called a Shroud that is used in Holy Week ceremonies in every Church of the Byzantine tradition, both Catholic and Orthodox.

NONE of them show an image with the qualities on the Shroud of Turin, however, especially its characteristists as a photographic negative. Usually they also show the Theotokos and other saints mouring around the dead body of Jesus.

Many churches have a corresponding Shroud of the Theotokos for services of 15 August.**
 
MrZetterlund said:
The Bible says it is shameful for a man to have long hair, that’s why everyone refuses to believe Jesus had long hair. Because **they themselves **find it shameful. (hippy-styled)
But Jesus was a meek and humble man. Hair doesn’t shame His glory :bowdown2:
Click to expand...
What about this

Numbers 6:1-27
While he is under the nazirite vow, no razor shall touch his hair. Until the period of his dedication to the LORD is over, he shall be sacred, and shall let the hair of his head grow freely.
Click to expand...
 
SANxJONERO said:
Like I said, it was in the bible obviously. Sorry if I couldn’t pin point the exact page for the don’t knows.
Click to expand...
If you are going to refer to a passage, how difficult is it to google the passage and verify, before you mention it in a post, or at least when someone asks you what you are speaking about?

You appear not to be acting in good faith here. Your use of the expression “the don’t knows” (of which you apparently are one, since you seem to be too lazy to look up your own texts) is evidence of this.
 
Some may also be disappointed that if Jesus was anything like the average man of his region at the time, he was not much over 5 foot tall and weighed around 120 pounds.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top