St. Paul, Long Hair and Jesus

[Sophie]

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.

I’m very shocked you and Fidelis didn’t attempt to also deny the early Christian centuries clean-shaven, short haired Jesus portrayed in the Catechism!!!

 

[Sophie]

If you don’t believe Jesus existed, in what sense are you a Catholic (per your self-description on your profile)?

It’s a long story. Seven years ago I was Catholic when one of my children decided to join the Mormons. Of course, like any good Catholics, my husband and I were a bit upset. I started to study the Mormon story, their true story, that is. Not the hoakie one they want everyone to believe today. From there I went on to study many other religions. You might say it became a hobby of mine. I learned and became aware of how all religious leaders invent their religions. I noticed many, many similarities, how they all use basically the same tactics to lure people into believing and keep them there. All the time, of course, never doubting the Catholic Church was the one true Christian Church. One day I was on this web-site and someone pointed out that the religious tactic of shunning was in the New Testament! I didn’t believe it. So I looked it up. I was appauled! From my religious studies I learned many religions use shunning (I saw it first hand with the Mormons) as one of their scare tactics to keep members believing, as well as a show of arrogance. I thought, how could this be in the bible? I never noticed this before! What am I really believing? I started noticing many other tactical similarities between the Catholic Church and many other religions. I opened my eyes to the sad fact that almost all religions throughout the centuries operate the same way!!! They all want their members to, of course, believe THEIR version of THEIR story. Not to mention the fact all religions change and evolve, or they would cease to exist. So I guess we all live and learn. I’ve also learned how incredibly fascinating the real world is! Much more fascinating than any religion ever could be!

 

[SVP]

It’s a long story. Seven years ago I was Catholic when one of my children decided to join the Mormons. Of course, like any good Catholics, my husband and I were a bit upset. I started to study the Mormon story, their true story, that is. Not the hoakie one they want everyone to believe today. From there I went on to study many other religions. You might say it became a hobby of mine. I learned and became aware of how all religious leaders invent their religions. I noticed many, many similarities, how they all use basically the same tactics to lure people into believing and keep them there. All the time, of course, never doubting the Catholic Church was the one true Christian Church. One day I was on this web-site and someone pointed out that the religious tactic of shunning was in the New Testament! I didn’t believe it. So I looked it up. I was appauled! From my religious studies I learned many religions use shunning (I saw it first hand with the Mormons) as one of their scare tactics to keep members believing, as well as a show of arrogance. I thought, how could this be in the bible? I never noticed this before! What am I really believing? I started noticing many other tactical similarities between the Catholic Church and many other religions. I opened my eyes to the sad fact that almost all religions throughout the centuries operate the same way!!! They all want their members to, of course, believe THEIR version of THEIR story. Not to mention the fact all religions change and evolve, or they would cease to exist. So I guess we all live and learn. I’ve also learned how incredibly fascinating the real world is! Much more fascinating than any religion ever could be!

No one is compelled to remain a Catholic if they stop believing in its truth. So why don’t you change your profile to indicate you’re no longer a Catholic?

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Can you provide a Scripture reference to back this up? I don’t see that in any of the Gospels.

My mistake - it’s in a Messianic passage in Isaiah 50 and I was told by my Baptist pastor that it was fulfilled.

Do you know of any artwork dating back to Apostolic times that would be most likely to accurately portray Jesus? Just because you’ve seen artwork portraying Him clean-shaven doesn’t mean it’s accurate. There is an altarpiece painted in 1455 where the artist has everyone except the Blessed Mother in 15th Century garb.

 

[Fidelis]

What about the clean-shaven Jesus pictures in the cathechism??? And many throughout history??? Hmmmm???

Um, sorry to tell you this but catechism pictures and other paintings are not the official teaching of the Church.

It is entirely immaterial what Jesus looked like, since it has no bearing on our salvation.

 

[Fidelis]

I’m very shocked you and Fidelis didn’t attempt to also deny the early Christian centuries clean-shaven, short haired Jesus portrayed in the Catechism!!!

Just for you, I answered this (see above).

 

[Fidelis]

It’s a long story. Seven years ago I was Catholic when one of my children decided to join the Mormons. Of course, like any good Catholics, my husband and I were a bit upset. I started to study the Mormon story, their true story, that is. Not the hoakie one they want everyone to believe today. From there I went on to study many other religions. You might say it became a hobby of mine. I learned and became aware of how all religious leaders invent their religions. I noticed many, many similarities, how they all use basically the same tactics to lure people into believing and keep them there. All the time, of course, never doubting the Catholic Church was the one true Christian Church. One day I was on this web-site and someone pointed out that the religious tactic of shunning was in the New Testament! I didn’t believe it. So I looked it up. I was appauled! From my religious studies I learned many religions use shunning (I saw it first hand with the Mormons) as one of their scare tactics to keep members believing, as well as a show of arrogance. I thought, how could this be in the bible? I never noticed this before! What am I really believing? I started noticing many other tactical similarities between the Catholic Church and many other religions. I opened my eyes to the sad fact that almost all religions throughout the centuries operate the same way!!! They all want their members to, of course, believe THEIR version of THEIR story. Not to mention the fact all religions change and evolve, or they would cease to exist. So I guess we all live and learn. I’ve also learned how incredibly fascinating the real world is! Much more fascinating than any religion ever could be!

I see. The olde “many religions have superficial similarities and thus must all be false” fallacy.

Perhaps this will help you. It is primarily about the pagan influence fallacy, but it addreseses your general misconceptions as well:

catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0003chap.asp

 

[Fidelis]

I opened my eyes to the sad fact that almost all religions throughout the centuries operate the same way!!! They all want their members to, of course, believe THEIR version of THEIR story. Not to mention the fact all religions change and evolve, or they would cease to exist.

Addressing this bit, you are arriving at a illogical conclusion based on a false premise. The false premise is the just because there are varying versions of a story, there must not be one, true original story. I think you can agree that is nonsense.

What one must do is do ones best to find the original story (using credible resources and not emotion or speculation) and find out who today is telling the original story.

If you look into the credible evidence from Scripture, the Early Church Fathers, and reason, I believe you will reach the conclusion that the Catholic Church is the real deal.

 

[mschrank]

Sophie. Every world view has a narrative that hit on certain spots. That’s what make them narratives.

Even liberal agnosticism, has its own myth-history, heroes, and all-encompassing point of view.

It’s like saying because all novels have a protagonist, so they are the same novel.

Anyway, what about what I said. So how do you square the Christ-myth hypothesis with the fact that Mithraism and the cults you refer to did not pick up speed until Julian the Apostate (Apostate… do you know what that infers?) and the creed existed in 55 ad? See 1 Cor: “Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures”

You’re pretty much stuck with two options. Either deny St. Paul actually wrote 1 Corinthians, or, try to argue that Persian Mythraism was the same thing as the Roman variety (you can’t, it’s like trying to argue that the Shin (Pure Land) or Theravada Buddhism practiced in the east is like the same watered down version of Mahayana that is popular with college students in the west). Since you’re a scholar of world religions, you should see the absurdity in the comparison.

I have a feeling you’re a bit out of your league here.

 

[GordonBOPS]

What about the clean-shaven Jesus pictures in the cathechism??? And many throughout history??? Hmmmm???

What is interesting to me is it sounds as though this perspective you mention is based on a view that is sorely overly influenced by media. There was no mass media then, there was no newspaper or CNN that people could see what people looked like - thus it is not a suprise if those who had received no other descriptions of Christ’s appearance (as really, isn’t the message the more important part?) would perhaps depict him as they look themselves. Further, the Shroud of Turin remains quite an enigmatic story with respect to its influence upon the artwork depicting Christ, oh, and its not been explained (that is not explained how the image got there).

 

[GordonBOPS]

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!!!

See, the problem with this statement is even the OLD TESTAMENT (which was not for Christians) tells the story of who Christ IS — so its not about creating one version that they WANT to believe, there’s much more to Christianity than the superficiality that exists in other branches of religion.

 

[bengal_fan]

Are you saying that the Church doesn’t want us to know Jesus as He really is (and that He is different than what the Church teaches)?

are you saying the people who try to reveal something new about Jesus set out to lie?

i was not saying what the church does is wrong by any means, i was simply pointing out the irony of the comment that we should run from anyone who claims to know the real Jesus.

 

[bengal_fan]

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…

sorry, but you aren’t exactly correct here. there were Christians who lived and died and would not understand the trinity the way we do today. many of the doctrines of the church were developed over time. so the church has not said the same things about Jesus from day one.

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.

most that i’ve heard don’t claim esoteric knowledge, but they simply use new historical evidence to look at Jesus. good historians are constantly trying to reconcile new discoveries with old thoughts.

i would agree that there are some who say they have conversations with God and they KNOW Jesus more than the rest of us and we need to follow them. but i would say the church does this to an extant as well. i am not saying that what the church says is wrong, but i am simply saying we can’t make a blanket statement to run away from those who claim to teach the real Jesus.

i would end by saying, we know much more about the 1st century now then we did 500 or even 1000 years ago.

 

[Fidelis]

sorry, but you aren’t exactly correct here. there were Christians who lived and died and would not understand the trinity the way we do today. many of the doctrines of the church were developed over time. so the church has not said the same things about Jesus from day one.

I would make a further distinction here between something as developed as our current explanations of something like the Trinity and what the first Christians believed. Of course what they believed was not as precisely defined as we would put it, but as is clear from a reading of the Early Church Fathers, the essence of what the Church now teaches about Christ was believed by the first Christians.

most that i’ve heard don’t claim esoteric knowledge, but they simply use new historical evidence to look at Jesus. good historians are constantly trying to reconcile new discoveries with old thoughts…

I don’t think any rational person can argue against that. However, as Pope Benedict VI pointed out numerous times in his recent book “Jesus of Nazareth,” where these scholars get in trouble is when they seperate the Jesus of history from the Jesus of Faith, often supplanting one with the other. We must do neither – what we learn about the Jesus of history can only clarify what Christians have always believed about Jesus, not contradict or replace it.

i would end by saying, we know much more about the 1st century now then we did 500 or even 1000 years ago.

We know more archeological, linguistic and sociological details about the life and times. But the ECF’s (especially the very early ones that were taught by the apostles or their disciples) knew a thing or two as well. And they in turn passed them down to us. When it comes to matter of Faith, I think we need to continue to listen to them, while we take the new information as helpful, but not definitive

 

[patrick457]

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.

Not really. While in the early centuries, Jesus is mostly depicted as a short-haired and/or beardless youth (which perhaps may have a more symbolic purpose than an actual attempt to show how Jesus looked like), there are also some pre-6th Century images which show Jesus as long-haired and/or bearded:

http://www.op.org/international/assets/images/Curia/church07.jpg

ca. 430-35
Carved cypress panel from the doors of the Basilica of Santa Sabina, Rome

http://www.aug.edu/augusta/iconography/newStuffForXnCours/catacumbasCristianas/xPeterPaul.jpg

4th century, Catacomb of Saints Marcellinus and Peter on the Via Labicana

http://www.ou.edu/class/ahi1113/slides/07-17.jpg

The Rabbula Gospels, Syriac, 586 AD

http://www.textually.org/textually/archives/images/set2/b_catacomb.jpg

Catacombs of Commodilla, 375 AD

http://www.franciscanfriarstor.com/theorder/Basilica/images/moasic_of_christ.jpg

Apse mosaic, Basilicas of Sts. Cosmas and Damian, 527-530 AD

http://www.calvin.edu/academic/clas/courses/231/orph5.jpg

Galla Placidia, 425-430 AD

So these type of depictions of Jesus is not totally alien to pre-6th century Christianity.

Plus, where did you get the idea that Jesus wore ‘a monk’s tunic’? As far as I can see, he continued to wear the tunic and pallium that has been assigned to Him in art (albeit in different colors, such as purple or red and blue)

 

[Cetil]

It seems that if Jesus had short hair then we would have to question the authenticity of the Shroud, wouldnt’ we? I’d be interested to hear some replies on this.
Thanks,

C.

 

[Ron_Conte]

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.

Different hair lengths for men and women, veils for women, differences in clothing for men and women, are all merely exterior symbols of an interior truth, that God intends men and women to have different roles in the Church, the family, and society. Paul is using these symbols to refer to the underlying reality, built into the very nature of humanity, that men and women, while equal in nature, are also different in gender. And this difference in gender does affect God’s will for each person, to a substantial extent.

 

[billbobagns]

I am a new user. Today, I was doing research on “Jesus and Long Hair” and Google brought me here. As a faithful catholic, I assumed I’d found a great forum being that the URL says forums.catholic-questions.org that is.

However, I registered here just to tell you that I will not be taking part in this discussion.

When I gather with a group of Catholics to talk about religion, the last thing the conversation needs is a loud mouth know it all atheist who wants to spew his non-belief on all of us.

I recommend the admin of this forum consider creating a members-only moderated discussion group for Catholics or change the name of this forum to indicate it includes non-Catholics.

Sure, it’s good for very strong failthful Catholics to have open discussions with non beleivers, but many are not so strong, not so mature, not so well grounded. It is those, who may stumble onto this forum and become confused and troubled by people who claim in their profile to be Catholic, yet express doubt the Jesus was God and insinuate that beleivers are fools.

Sincerely

Bill Johnson
Shawnee, OK

 

[steve53]

Not this carp again! uch:

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.

THIS!!!

 

[patrick457]

THIS!!!

Seconded.