I asked this question on the “Did Jesus have long hair” thread. Nobody answered.
So, I’ll ask it here.
Why does anyone care what He looked like?
It seems that the christians want him to have been the tall, handsome, arian adonis commonly depicted in popular art. That’s not very likely, given the circumstances of His birth.
And the athiests want Him to have looked more like Charles Manson. More likely, but not proven by any evidence.
Anyway, my question is not about his appeareace, but about the importance of his appearence, especially to the christians. Some of whom get really pissed off if you even imply that Jesus was anything but physically beautiful.
Christian love is purported to be all-encompassing. Why would anyone even care if He was handsome?
Please, no “witnessing” on this thread. And limit your answers to why you care.
Peace,
mangeorge (Non-christian, non-athiest)
Teach your kids to bungee jump.
One them might have to cross a bridge someday.
Most people are not very comfortable praying to a “being” out there in space somewhere. It’s easier for them to pray to a visualization, like a painting or a statue. The Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches have statues and icons; the Protestants having paintings, like that one of Jesus knocking on a door. And everybody has stained glass windows.
As for Jesus being handsome, it says in Isaiah 53:2b, speaking of the Messiah, “He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.” In other words, he wasn’t real good-lookin’.
I can’t speak for Judaism, but I do know that Islam specifically prohibits any artwork depicting God.
“Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast!” - the White Queen
Threll: The shroud’s already been disproven, but a nice idea anyway.
Mangeorge said:
Well, in the case of the story I described, it showed the hypocrisy of a preacher – saying long hair was wrong, but then showing a picture drawn of Jesus, supposedly given to the artist straight from God, with long hair. Whoops!
Um, what atheist wants that? I don’t know of any. Atheists figure he was just some guy in the desert, so why would they care what he looked like?
I said in that other thread, that I thought there was a Biblical reference to Jesus being very beautiful. But, after looking up that verse in Isaiah, it turns out that He was not physically attractive.
Either way, He is the Savior of the world. He is the single most important person who ever lived, and who ever will live. To a person who believes this, it hurts when someone says He was ugly. It’s like, dissing your most loved one. So, we paint picturs of Him, that show beauty…even though He may have been all that handsome, on the outside.
BTW, the long haired Jesus is permanently ingrained in ALL of our minds. No matter what anybody says now about his hair, everybody will always think of Jesus with the long hair, and dark beard that we’ve seen hundreds of times, in hundreds of pictures, movies, books…etc…etc.
I am interested in many inane things. I agree, it is not important.
Plus I was crassly plugging my “Dr. Barbara Thiering’s Jesus the Man” thread.
I have yet to find anyone here familiar with this book.
Peace
Hold on a minute. Isaiah was a prophet, right? Apart fromt he fact that prophesy has long been subject to interpretation, Isaiah was around several hundred years before Christ’s birth. As Isaiah never met the man, he can hardly be used as evidence of Christ’s appearance, now can he?
In addition to David’s response, I’d like to take the opportunity to establish, yet again, that atheist does not equal ANTI-theist (Boomer’s rantings notwithstanding). While I may not be Christian, I have NO desire at all to equate Christ with Charlie Manson. Or disprove his existence. Or negate his teachings.
I’m a big fan of the Golden Rule. I won’t bash Christ if Christians don’t bash the IPU.
** Hold on a minute. Isaiah was a prophet, right? Apart fromt he fact that prophesy has long been subject to interpretation, Isaiah was around several hundred years before Christ’s birth. As Isaiah never met the man, he can hardly be used as evidence of Christ’s appearance, now can he? **
Isaiah was a prophet, and being given the ability to see into the future by the Holy Spirit, much as John did with Revelation.
To answer the OP, other than being human, and needing to connect with another human, we want to use our senses to do so. But, in all things, it’s better to be more realistic when it’s possible.
Isaiah 53 paints a more realistic picture of Christ than any other portion of the Bible. Back up to Chapter 52: vs. 13-15 ‘So His visage was marred more than any man.’
Christ’s beauty came from within. I can only imagine the power of His love emanating from His eyes when He looked at His disciples. What would one look from Him make a man dependent on fishing, drop his net and leave his life’s occupation, without a word, without a question??
This isn’t in the realms of a debate but I saw a web site where you could buy a Jesus statue. The kicker is, you could buy him in a white model or a black model.
Damn I wish I had a link to share, it’s kind of funny if you think about it.
Andros says;
“I have NO desire at all to equate Christ with Charlie Manson.”
Ok, nor do I. Charles Manson was a bad choice. But the description (short, slightly hunch-backed, balding, eyebrows meet, etc) on the other thread does fit old Charlie pretty closely. I didn’t mean to equate him with Him. Only the physical appearance. I can’t think of anyone else who is famous and fits the description. Danny Devito’s too fat.
Please accept that my use of “christian” and “athiest” in tne OP are meant to represent extremes. Extreme ideas of what Jesus must looked like, that is. Excuse, if you can, my humble vocabulary.
My point is that it shouldn’t matter either way what He looked like, to christian or non christian.
When I posted this I thought I was in MPSIMS. Oh, well. I guess it fits better in here afterall.
Peace,
mangeorge
I used to care, but
things have changed (Bob Dylan)
Actually, “Isaiah” did not write Isaiah 52, or 53. It is generally accepted by Biblical scholars, that the actual writings of “Isaiah” end at I:40, after that there was a second Prophet, who added his words onto the 1st. (and it is likely that I;55-66 was written by yet a 3rd). It also appears that the “servant of the Lord” is actually the 2nd Isaiah, speaking about himself (I:49).
However, re this thread, altho the appearance of the Messiah is not really important, the appearance of one of the most important & influential humans in history, would be nice to know.
Before I became an athiest, I was a church-going bible thumper. But I also wore my hair very long, which irked some of my fellow christians. I asked my pastor what the problem was.
He qouted the book of 1st Cortinthians
11:14
Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
I then pointed out all of the paintings of Jesus in our church, with his long, flowing mane. He then hemmed and hawed and gave me a bullshit answer about that being only an artist’s representation and this and that. The only thing I learned from him was that the church looked down on long haired teenage boys.
I don’t want to get sucked into a discussion of inerrancy, Pauline doctrine, or women’s rights here, but I think it’s clear that we need to take cultural mores into account. In 1st century A.D. Roman society, it was common for fashionable men and women to take a great deal of time and trouble to have their hair done. Obviously, Paul disapproves of people who do this. He especially disapproves of men who let their hair grow and then fiddle around with it.
Also, Paul’s attitudes towards women come into play. He obviously feels that a woman should keep her hair (which we post-industrial moderns tend to forget is an important secondary sexual attribute) covered in public. All cultures up to today have usually had a married woman keep her hair covered as a sign of her “sexually unavailable” social status. I think Paul is reflecting that prejudice here. In Bible times only prostitutes flaunted their hair in public. Today the Amish and Mennonites take these verses quite seriously; women in those churches wear little prayer caps all the time.
So I don’t think Paul is preaching against “long hair” per se, just “long primped hair”. There were plenty of instances in Biblical times where a man would allow his hair to grow for various reasons, such as various sects (Nazarenes, Essenes, etc.) or to fulfill a vow. By the same token, I don’t think he’s preaching against “braided hair” per se, just “long braided primped hair”, “women who spend all their time at the hairdresser’s”, etc.
Paul also obviously feels that women in the church should be seen and not heard, and keeping their hair (secondary sexual attribute, remember?) decently under cover was part of that.
Also, if long hair is a female secondary sexual attribute, it would be very nervous-making to someone like Paul to see a MAN with it. Like seeing a man wearing a dress is to people who get all hot and bothered about transvestites.
I never read these passages without wondering who it was in the Corinthian church that got him all hot and bothered about all this. Was it perhaps a woman? If these stones could talk…
Paul also reflects the prevalent cultural attitude of the day, that the only reason for women to exist was to be “saved through childbearing”. I have to say that the longer I go on and the more I study Paul’s letters, the more I come to realize two things: he was a truly great man, but sometimes he could be downright obnoxious and annoying. He must have been both a blessing and a great trial to the churches he visited.
Spooje, you just had the misfortune to run across a pastor who had never really thought about it. He just gave you the knee-jerk answer he was most familiar with. “Bible-thumpers” are frequently like that, and yeah, they also frequently “look down on long-haired teenage boys”. But you never know–maybe your question got him to thinking, and maybe nowadays he gives a different answer.
“Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast!” - the White Queen
I’m not terribly surprised that you hadn’t heard it – it is conspicuously absent from most media accounts. I mean, it just isn’t very exciting to say, “This is still a fraud…”
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Notthemama:
**Most people are not very comfortable praying to a “being” out there in space somewhere. It’s easier for them to pray to a visualization, like a painting or a statue.
Well, yes exactly. It’s easier. I’m under the impression that was the reason for the second commandment, because it’s easy to make an image, but God is beyond your imagining. Images can be manipulated but God cannot be manipulated. A picture can be understood but God cannot be understood. Just ask Job.
This debate is a case in point. Picturing Jesus (i.e. god?) as long haired or short haired, white or black, leads to “well, I’m short haired so i’m more like god.” “I’m white so I’m more like god” “I’m black so I’m more like god.” etc. etc. The second commandment made a good point.
could the whole thing with long hair be that in the end, while Jesus was jailed, and then crucified, there was no haircut, or hygiene at all for him? it just grew, and thats the last way people remembered him?
