Did Jesus "really" have long hair?

[sheya joie]

Ive always heard that the Jesus we see is a famous painting by michaelangelo, of some Italian man.

Jesus is breifly described in the OT, I believe Isaiah, and from what I read he was not the most handsome out there.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually there is an interesting story behind this. The man whom Leonardo Da Vinci chose to depict Jesus in his "Last Supper" (Which is actually a wall fresco if I remember my art history correctly) was actually a thief. I forget the whole story, but it's actually pretty cool.

Anyway, I think that we get a lot of our imagery of what Jesus looked like from "popular culture." I don't think it really matters one way or another if He had long or short hair. I know what He 'looks like" in my spirit, and that's enough.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The story Ovedya alludes to, which may or may not be true, is that when Da Vinci was painting his 'Last Supper,' he searched for a model for Jesus and found a very nice looking young man. He painted the young man in the middle of the huge painting, then continued on searching for models for the apostles and painting them. It took a very long time.

Finally, he needed to find a model for Judas Iscariot. After a long search, he found a prisoner, whose face showed the horrible effects of his wicked life. Da Vinci painted him for Judas, only finding out after he was done with the painting, that...

the model for Judas...

was...

the same model he had used years before, for Jesus.

But as I said, this may only be a story and not actually history.

(Oh, and on the original topic, I too believe that Jesus did not have long hair. I would find it hard to believe that HE would not have had a beard, though. The lengthy article posted earlier was interesting reading, but I don't see where the grooming habits of the Romans would tell us the grooming habits of the subjected Jews, who for the most part hated their overlords. I had always understood that men of the Middle East would grow their beards as soon as they were able to, and would not shave them off.)

[Sirsilius]

Wow! Very interesting, sheya joie

Thanks for that info.

[DaBronx]

Yes, there is no flesh attraction to Messiah, for Isaiah (53) tells us "he hath no form or comeliness:and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him."

Yet there is one who is coming who will be desirable because of his flesh looks and many will be deceived into following him to hell.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Makes total sense since we live in a society where appearance seems to mean everything... Todays celebrities don't need talent as long as they are appealing in physique...People are hired (although nbot made public for fear of lawsuits) based on their looks... Studies have shown that good-looking people in need of help will get assistance from starngers faster than those who are not attractive...

That the antichrist will be goodlooking so that more people will follow him sounds very true to the times...

[Gerioke]

Does it really matter? or am I missing something?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes it does matter. If it didn't matter why would Paul even bring it up? Why would he say it's a dishonor for a man to have long hair and then turn around and say it's ok?

I started a thread about this a few months ago. Total chaos. It went nowhere and everywhere. The only thing that thread accomplished was a lot of name calling and mud slinging. I will not go there again. If you want to know the reasons for my belief's, drop my an email. If not...that's ok too.

Anyway...just thought I'd throw this out there.

As always...In His name.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, if its sinful for a man to have womanly long hair, then the Sinless One wouldn't have had hair too long, n'est ce pas? Seems pretty obvious to me...I'm sure his hair was perfectly acceptable for a man.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

At what point did "womanly" long hair become womanly? Nazarites did not cut their hair at all.

[gypc]

I have long hair and my wife loves to run her fingers through it...........1st Cor 11:16But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God. .........and that;s the rest of the story

[yomotalking]

AllI know is:

Historians know that men in Bible Times wore long hair.

So Jesus may have, I don't really know.

What matters is: Jesus died for us!!!

Yomo

[NITE OWL]

Does it really matter? or am I missing something?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes it does matter. If it didn't matter why would Paul even bring it up? Why would he say it's a dishonor for a man to have long hair and then turn around and say it's ok?

I started a thread about this a few months ago. Total chaos. It went nowhere and everywhere. The only thing that thread accomplished was a lot of name calling and mud slinging. I will not go there again. If you want to know the reasons for my belief's, drop my an email. If not...that's ok too.

Anyway...just thought I'd throw this out there.

As always...In His name.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, if its sinful for a man to have womanly long hair, then the Sinless One wouldn't have had hair too long, n'est ce pas? Seems pretty obvious to me...I'm sure his hair was perfectly acceptable for a man.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

At what point did "womanly" long hair become womanly? Nazarites did not cut their hair at all.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I will ask you again, Why would Paul mention this if the churches of God held no such custom?

[Gerioke]

Does it really matter? or am I missing something?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes it does matter. If it didn't matter why would Paul even bring it up? Why would he say it's a dishonor for a man to have long hair and then turn around and say it's ok?

I started a thread about this a few months ago. Total chaos. It went nowhere and everywhere. The only thing that thread accomplished was a lot of name calling and mud slinging. I will not go there again. If you want to know the reasons for my belief's, drop my an email. If not...that's ok too.

Anyway...just thought I'd throw this out there.

As always...In His name.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, if its sinful for a man to have womanly long hair, then the Sinless One wouldn't have had hair too long, n'est ce pas? Seems pretty obvious to me...I'm sure his hair was perfectly acceptable for a man.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

At what point did "womanly" long hair become womanly? Nazarites did not cut their hair at all.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I will ask you again, Why would Paul mention this if the churches of God held no such custom?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Maybe Paul was bald and envied people with any hair at all. Men in the OT made up a lot of their own rules. Don't you think the NT men were just as imperfect?

[NITE OWL]

Does it really matter? or am I missing something?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes it does matter. If it didn't matter why would Paul even bring it up? Why would he say it's a dishonor for a man to have long hair and then turn around and say it's ok?

I started a thread about this a few months ago. Total chaos. It went nowhere and everywhere. The only thing that thread accomplished was a lot of name calling and mud slinging. I will not go there again. If you want to know the reasons for my belief's, drop my an email. If not...that's ok too.

Anyway...just thought I'd throw this out there.

As always...In His name.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, if its sinful for a man to have womanly long hair, then the Sinless One wouldn't have had hair too long, n'est ce pas? Seems pretty obvious to me...I'm sure his hair was perfectly acceptable for a man.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

At what point did "womanly" long hair become womanly? Nazarites did not cut their hair at all.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I will ask you again, Why would Paul mention this if the churches of God held no such custom?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Maybe Paul was bald and envied people with any hair at all. Men in the OT made up a lot of their own rules. Don't you think the NT men were just as imperfect?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So what you're saying is that Paul was just pulling stuff out of the air. Writing just for the sake of writing, making it up as he goes. Interesting.

Who's your teacher?

[Gerioke]

Does it really matter? or am I missing something?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes it does matter. If it didn't matter why would Paul even bring it up? Why would he say it's a dishonor for a man to have long hair and then turn around and say it's ok?

I started a thread about this a few months ago. Total chaos. It went nowhere and everywhere. The only thing that thread accomplished was a lot of name calling and mud slinging. I will not go there again. If you want to know the reasons for my belief's, drop my an email. If not...that's ok too.

Anyway...just thought I'd throw this out there.

As always...In His name.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, if its sinful for a man to have womanly long hair, then the Sinless One wouldn't have had hair too long, n'est ce pas? Seems pretty obvious to me...I'm sure his hair was perfectly acceptable for a man.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

At what point did "womanly" long hair become womanly? Nazarites did not cut their hair at all.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I will ask you again, Why would Paul mention this if the churches of God held no such custom?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Maybe Paul was bald and envied people with any hair at all. Men in the OT made up a lot of their own rules. Don't you think the NT men were just as imperfect?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So what you're saying is that Paul was just pulling stuff out of the air. Writing just for the sake of writing, making it up as he goes. Interesting.

Who's your teacher?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

King James

How many woman do you know who cover their heads in church. Have you ever been part of a congregation were women didn't speak? People have issues. I think that was the point that Jesus was trying to make when he simplified the commandments.