Jesus Hair/appearance

  • Thread starter Thread starter modestobruce
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

modestobruce

Guest
Hello
Many of you have seen the computer-generated picture of Jesus from several years ago by Richard Neave for a BBC documentary. Regarding Jesus’ hair it is styled short and curly-not long and straight as commonly depicted. The comment was made that Jesus would have looked like most other Middle Eastern men if that era and most likely not at all how we usually see him (tall, thin with blue eyes and long hair). In support of this notion, it was observed that Judas had to point Jesus out to the Roman guards when He was arrested. Also, Corinthians 11:14 states: “Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him.” Ie, Jesus would not be seen with longish hair. This passage is used by some Shroud naysayers as evidence of its inauthenticity.
Does anyone have thoughts here about Jesus’ appearance? Does Corinthians 11:14 shoot down the Shroud?
 
Last edited:
I put 0 (zero) value to what the BBC, History Channel, etc. portray of Jesus or Catholicism in general.
They are enemies of GOD and allied with the enemy.
One of Jesus titles is Jesus of Nazareth. However HE was not born there.
If you investigate the Nazirite where person who were dedicated to GOD. And one of the aspects of the dedication was to not cut their hair. Samson was also Nazirite. Remember the story about Delilah cutting his hair and he losing his strength as result.
Jesus is the ultimate Nazirite as HE is totally dedicated to do the will of the Father.
 
I have only seen one picture of Jesus with blond hair, and that is the Apocalyptic Jesus in the National Shrine. In that picture, His hair is actually white, since He is portrayed as the Ancient of Days and the Son of Man from Daniel and Revelation. The blond appearance comes from the flames and lightning stuff going on.

And I agree that Paul was not talking Nazirite hair or traditional Jewish sidelocks, when he talked about long hair for men. He was talking about styles that looked girly or effeminate, because they were meant to. (Also meant to appall these guy’s dads, or to be worn by male boy prostitute slaves to attract adult male clients.)

We know a fair bit about Roman and Greek long hair for men, and there are statues showing it. That is not mullet length. It is all the way down the back, carefully arranged in tresses, perfumed, oiled, ornamented with special hairties or ribbons, blah blah blah.

Short hair was what a respectable, energetic Roman man of action wore. Mullet length was sort of old-timey from the country.
 
Last edited:
The issue of 1st century Jewish men’s hair length has been discussed previously on CAF.
The answer is that Paul was referring to the waist-length hair that Jewish women favored. Men were not supposed to wear their hair down to the waist as women did. However, in obedience to Leviticus 19:27, observant Jewish men did not shave their beards or wear their hair in a short, Roman style.
Jesus’ hair length as depicted on His Shroud is normal for 1st century Jewish men.

As for the Shroud, it was proven to be authentic in 1898 by Secundo Pia’s astounding negative photographic plate. That Catholic theologians Devielier and Thurston failed to understand this proof does not invalidate it. The proof was confirmed by Barbet’s medical studies and by the intensive 1978 scientific analysis.

The one question that remained was whether the Lord’s image on the Shroud was of a miraculous or natural origin. The 1988 carbon fourteen evidence was proof that the Shroud had at some point in its 2000 year history been exposed to neutron radiation. Since it was never taken to a nuclear reactor, the neutron radiation must have been a result of the disappearance of the divine corpse into another dimension.
So Jesus’ image on the Shroud is miraculous. It was caused by proton radiation left by the vanishing of His corpse.
 
Last edited:
We’ve been over both Jesus’ hair length (and that Scriptural verse) and the BBC picture on a number of past threads.

As someone else posted, “long hair” at the time the Scripture was written meant “way past shoulder length”. Hair to your chin or over your collar would be normal for Jewish men of that time. Jesus’ hair length probably varied throughout his life depending on if he just had a hair cut, but it was likely never “long” in the sense of the scripture, which would have required months of growth. Jewish people didn’t wear Roman-style short haircuts unless maybe they were rich people trying to cozy up to the Romans.
 
If one is to believe that the Shroud is the imprint in the material caused by the Resurrection, then the question is answered.

And if the Shroud is not that, but is from the 1st century, again, the question is answered.

FWIW, I happen to believe the Shroud is the burial cloth of Jesus.

Everyone else is welcome to believe otherwise. If it were a court case in civil law, the preponderance of the evidence indicates it is.
 
Last edited:
If this is the case then why hadn’t the Vatican deemed the shroud officially a holy relic?
 
modestobruce said:
If this is the case then why hadn’t the Vatican deemed the shroud officially a holy relic?
Click to expand...
That, my friend, is a good question. In 1936 Pope Pius XI said that the Shroud was most certainly Jesus’ burial cloth. My feeling is that after the 1978 scientific study (which could find absolutely nothing that would preclude the authenticity of the Shroud) Vatican scientists wanted a futher confirmation by way of a first century carbon fouteen dating. I believe that their insistence on getting this final “proof” was a mistake. The authenticity of the Shroud had already been scientifically proven, and knowledgable scientists warned that a first century neutron radiation event would skew the results. In short, they put God to the test and were flomoxed by the strange results of the C-14 testing. The British Museum and its atheist scientists joyfully proclamed the Shroud to be a fraud. Unable to stand up to the emmense prestige of the British Museum, the Church had to refrain from officially proclaiming the authenticity of the Shroud.

Recent scientific investigations have debunked the British Museums conclusion that the 1988 C-14 evidence was proof of a 14th century origin for the Shroud.* Alternative dating methods have resulted in a date of 35 B.C. +/- 250 years with a 95% certainty. Robust statistical analysis of the 1988 C-14 data shows that this evidence does not meet the statistical test for producing a reliable date, but if one insists on assigning a date to that evidence it woudl be 1325 A.D with an uncertainty factor of about 20,000 years!

*THE SHROUD OF TURIN: FIRST CENTURY AFTER CHRIST!, Fanti/Malfi, 2015 (highly recommended)
 
Last edited:
modestobruce said:
In support of this notion, it was observed that Judas had to point Jesus out to the Roman guards when He was arrested.
Click to expand...
Jesus did not wear special clothing or looked particularly different from other Jews. James the Less was called ‘The Lord’s brother’ probably because he looked like Jesus and could be easily confused by the guards. So Judas’ evil assistance was needed.
 
Yes, they are probably right.

It is very improbable that Jesus had long hair. It was not something acceptable in the Semit culture of the time.

Representations of Jesus with long hair is an heritage from the barbaric european culture (which progressively invade the ruin of Roman Empire).
Straight hair, blue eyes, dark blond hair, aquilin nose is an Europeanisation of Jesus’s image means to reassure and made population to identify as Jesus.

As Europe is the first continent where Chritianism was massively propagated, theses representation remains today.

It is an acculturation process. Such as Asian or African people can acculturate Jesus by represent him with physical appearence closer to them.
 
You would have to ask the last, oh maybe 6 Popes; some of whom are no longer taking questions. I don’t see that there is any particular need to do so; the Shroud has been carefully guarded and respected for centuries. Certainly there is a level of acceptance of it as a holy relic, whether or not there has been an official proclamation.

Which brings up another question: has the tilma ever officially been declared a holy relic?
 
Camehome4john6 said:
Why is His appearance important? Who He is and what He did matters a great deal more.
Click to expand...
I would add that since Jesus has been in his glorified body for 2000+ years now, he can likely choose to look any way he wants. If he wants to appear to St Faustina looking like a Polish man, he does it. If he wants to appear to someone else looking African, he does it. All this debate about how he looked in his time is pretty irrelevant.
 
I assume you were replying to Tis_Bearself.

It would appear that you are unfamiliar with apparitions; I referred to one specifically - Our Lady of Guadalupe. In that apparition, she appeared as a native, with dark skin and features so identifying her.
 
Anicette said:
Yes, they are probably right.

It is very improbable that Jesus had long hair. It was not something acceptable in the Semit culture of the time.

Representations of Jesus with long hair is an heritage from the barbaric european culture (which progressively invade the ruin of Roman Empire).
Straight hair, blue eyes, dark blond hair, aquilin nose is an Europeanisation of Jesus’s image means to reassure and made population to identify as Jesus.
Click to expand...
This statement indicates that you believe that the holy Shroud of Turin is a fraud. Could you please explain why? TY.

BTW, as indicated by the 6th century mural of Christ found in St. Catherine’s Monastery in the Sinai, the depictions of Jesus with long hair and beard originated in the near east, not in Europe.
 
Last edited:
otjm said:
It would appear that you are unfamiliar with apparitions; I referred to one specifically - Our Lady of Guadalupe. In that apparition, she appeared as a native, with dark skin and features so identifying her.
Click to expand...
In her apparitions Mary often takes on the look of the cultures she’s appearing to; it simply shows that God have her as a mother to all people’s. In Lourdes she looked French.
 
I remember seeing a debate about religion on television a few years ago and a black celebrity said he won’t follow Jesus because he isn’t black and he couldn’t identify with him.
 
That makes little sense given that not only was Jesus probably quite dark-skinned if not actually part African (we don’t know for sure, but it wouldn’t be outside the realm possibility) , but also Jesus was a member of a subjugated minority group.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top