St. Paul, Long Hair and Jesus

  • Thread starter Thread starter GordonBOPS
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

GordonBOPS

Guest
I saw a clip on the discovery channel last night of a new show that tries to give us the “face” of Jesus (never mind the Shroud of Turin) and they spent part of this discussing the passage from St. Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 11:14) how it was a disgrace to wear long hair.

Any one have more insight on this? I had heard that St. Paul was speaking relatively, and that there was traditional long hair, which is long to us, but was standard length back then – and then there is LOOOONG HAIR (think 80’s Heavy Metal Bands)… and St. Paul was talking about the very very long hair.
 
paul had long hair at one point. he took the vow of the nazirite (the same one samson lived from birth as well as john the baptist). this vow includes: not drinking wine or any other fermented drink, no razor touches your head, you cannot touch anything dead, and a few other things. when you ended your vow (or if you came into contact with something dead and had to start over or end it), you shaved your head as a sign the vow was over. paul grew his hair out during this vow and then shaved his head when it was over.
 
Although the Bible never says so, I have always wondered if Jesus may have taken a lifelong Nazarite vow. Or possibly only during his 3-year ministry. Samson and Samuel (and possibly Absalom, Elijah, and John the Baptist) were Nazarites their whole lives so it is not unprecedented. Long hair under such circumstances would be thought of as holy rather than a disgrace.

Does any one know if there are any traditions about this yay or nay?
 
jmcdzzz said:
Although the Bible never says so, I have always wondered if Jesus may have taken a lifelong Nazarite vow. Or possibly only during his 3-year ministry. Samson and Samuel (and possibly Absalom, Elijah, and John the Baptist) were Nazarites their whole lives so it is not unprecedented. Long hair under such circumstances would be thought of as holy rather than a disgrace.

Does any one know if there are any traditions about this yay or nay?
Click to expand...
Jesus could not have taken the vow. he drank wine. he touched dead people and those considered unclean. he touched women (or they touched him… bleeding woman). all of these go against the vow. he would have been shaving his head an awful lot!
 
I may be able to clear this up for you. Jesus has only been portrayed long haired since the 6th century. Before that he was always clean shaven, had short hair and was younger, as seen in the Catechism of the CC, pgs. 277 & 421. And he was portrayed in a Roman soldier uniform or a Greek philosopher’s toga.

The 6th century is when he started to be portrayed in a monk’s habit, rabbi’s beard, long hair and took on an older look.

As the legend of Jesus evolved and changed, so did his physical appearance. His legend came about as a plagarism of the stories of the gods Apollo, Serapis, Antinous and the sun god Mithras. The Jesus we know today, originally started as a mythical sun god. Over the years, his story changed him into a man-god who actually lived on earth.

So, this scripture about long hair was written during the period when Jesus was being portrayed as short haired. It wasn’t till a hand full more centuries that he would have long hair.
 
Sophie said:
I may be able to clear this up for you. Jesus has only been portrayed long haired since the 6th century. Before that he was always clean shaven, had short hair and was younger, as seen in the Catechism of the CC, pgs. 277 & 421. And he was portrayed in a Roman soldier uniform or a Greek philosopher’s toga.
Click to expand...
He couldn’t have been clean-shaven. They pulled out His beard before they scourged then crucified Him. There had to have been enough hair there to get hold of.
 
bengal_fan said:
Jesus could not have taken the vow. he drank wine. he touched dead people and those considered unclean. he touched women (or they touched him… bleeding woman). all of these go against the vow. he would have been shaving his head an awful lot!
Click to expand...
Duh! Next time I’ll put on my thinking cap before posting…Who am I kidding?!
 
Sophie said:
As the legend of Jesus evolved and changed, so did his physical appearance. His legend came about as a plagarism of the stories of the gods Apollo, Serapis, Antinous and the sun god Mithras. The Jesus we know today, originally started as a mythical sun god. Over the years, his story changed him into a man-god who actually lived on earth.
Click to expand...
Oh jeeze, not this old canard again. Really, the whole Christ myth thing never ceases to amaze me. You really should know, if you knew your history from references outside Earl Doherty and Acharya S, that the form of Mithras worship that supposedly Jesus is yanked from, POST DATES Christianity. The Persian legend of Mithras is nothing like the late-Roman version. It really heated up after Julian the Apostate and the rise of neo-platonism.

The creeds stated in the earliest letters of St. Paul, which even the most critical scholars admit are his, were written around 55 AD. That’s 20 years after His death.

The “Christ Myth” position is a radical fringe position not supported by mainstream scholars, and I am not talking about the Christian ones. Look it up in wikipedia. If you want to feel educated in liberal “historical Jesus” discourse, read Erhman and Crossan.

Most liberal non-believing scholars like Bart Erhman believe in the “imaginative explosion” hypothesis, that Jesus did really live, and really did die, and that the Christian Community basically invented it in an “explosion of creativity” between 33-55 AD. 55 AD is seen as the cap because of the creeds you can find in St. Paul’s early letters. :rolleyes:
 
bengal_fan said:
UGH! wikepedia is the worst source of information on the web. anyone can post anything so there are so many mistakes you can’t count them.
Click to expand...
It’s not the worst its just very liberal in Point Of View (POV) when it comes to Jesus. So my point was, if Wikipedia with its liberal POV clearly states that the “Christ Myth” is a minority, fringe opinon, then you’ve got to be pretty sure that it is a whackjob theory not to be taken seriously.
 
mschrank said:
It’s not the worst its just very liberal in Point Of View (POV) when it comes to Jesus. So my point was, if Wikipedia with its liberal POV clearly states that the “Christ Myth” is a minority, fringe opinon, then you’ve got to be pretty sure that it is a whackjob theory not to be taken seriously.
Click to expand...
it is the worst (not to totally derail this thread). it is not liberal, it is whatever the individual writing the information wants it to be. i could go on there and say the the “Christ Myth” is well founded and espoused by many and people could say, “look!! it says so right there on wikipedia!”

i am just saying, find a quote from a reliable source (there are many since it is a minority opinion) and it strengthens your argument.

nothing wrong with using wikipedia to get the basics of something, but always know you are dealing with opinion (usually of people who aren’t extremely educated on the subject).
 
Sophie said:
I may be able to clear this up for you. Jesus has only been portrayed long haired since the 6th century. Before that he was always clean shaven, had short hair and was younger, as seen in the Catechism of the CC, pgs. 277 & 421. And he was portrayed in a Roman soldier uniform or a Greek philosopher’s toga.

The 6th century is when he started to be portrayed in a monk’s habit, rabbi’s beard, long hair and took on an older look.

As the legend of Jesus evolved and changed, so did his physical appearance. His legend came about as a plagarism of the stories of the gods Apollo, Serapis, Antinous and the sun god Mithras. The Jesus we know today, originally started as a mythical sun god. Over the years, his story changed him into a man-god who actually lived on earth.

So, this scripture about long hair was written during the period when Jesus was being portrayed as short haired. It wasn’t till a hand full more centuries that he would have long hair.
Click to expand...
Not this carp again! :ouch:

Honestly, religious topics should be banned from PBS, the Discovery Channel, and the History Channel. The number of confused people out there because of sensationalist psuedo-intellectual crockumentaries is legion.This isn’t even counting the idiotic book-club schlock like the DuhVinci Code. Anytime you run into something that purports to tell you the story of the “real Jesus” do your self a favor and RUN THE OTHER WAY!

Sorry, I have just lost patience with sort of thing. :mad:
 
Pixie_Dust said:
He couldn’t have been clean-shaven. They pulled out His beard before they scourged then crucified Him. There had to have been enough hair there to get hold of.
Click to expand...
Can you provide a Scripture reference to back this up? I don’t see that in any of the Gospels.
 
Sophie said:
As the legend of Jesus evolved and changed, so did his physical appearance. His legend came about as a plagarism of the stories of the gods Apollo, Serapis, Antinous and the sun god Mithras. The Jesus we know today, originally started as a mythical sun god. Over the years, his story changed him into a man-god who actually lived on earth.
Click to expand...
If you don’t believe Jesus existed, in what sense are you a Catholic (per your self-description on your profile)? :confused:
 
bengal_fan said:
Anytime you run into something that purports to tell you the story of the “real Jesus” do your self a favor and RUN THE OTHER WAY!
Click to expand...
The Church has been johnny-one-note through the centuries, telling the story of Jesus as it appears in the Scriptures and as it has been handed down through millennia.

The “Real Jesus” versions I’m talking about are the ones that claim esoteric knowledge (gnosticism), wild imaginings, and new revelations, and just plain dopey speculation (“scholarly” and non-scholarly) that purport to completely re-imagine Jesus as something completely different.
Click to expand...
 
Pixie_Dust said:
He couldn’t have been clean-shaven. They pulled out His beard before they scourged then crucified Him. There had to have been enough hair there to get hold of.
Click to expand...
What about the clean-shaven Jesus pictures in the cathechism??? And many throughout history??? Hmmmm???
 
bengal_fan said:
but isn’t that what the church attempts to do?
Click to expand...
EXCELLENT POINT!!! ALL RELIGIONS WANT THEIR MEMBERS TO BELIEVE IN THEIR VERSION OF THE STORY OF THEIR LEADER!!! NO MATTER HOW MUCH IT FLIES IN THE FACE OF TRUE HISTORY!!!
 
bengal_fan said:
i am just saying, find a quote from a reliable source (there are many since it is a minority opinion) and it strengthens your argument.

).
Click to expand...
To a Muslim it’s a minority opinion that Muhammed was not the true prophet of Allah!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top