Sage Rat:
Given the cruelties that the Roman Empire visited upon the early Christians, I’d find it hard to believe that Paul et al were anything other than true believers. Your parables spread their religion in America, where freedom of religion is guaranteed (although granted, early Mormons faced serious persecution) and cruel and unusual punishment is banned.
Just because they were “true believers” doesn’t mean that what they believed was true, or even that what they believed corresponded with the other sects out there. In fact, the persecution and difficulties actually seem to make it more likely that there would be differences between the individual groups. Each one would be largely based on the preferences and personal hangups of their individual leaders, in this case, Paul. Who, let’s be honest here, seems to have some pretty strong personal beliefs and hangups.
Josephus, who talks about James dying before the fall of Jerusalem, indicates that Simeon, son of Clopas (who was brother of Joseph) was elected head of the Jerusalem Church. I think the whole Thebutis took the “real” church East and Paul’s minions took over Jerusalem and the West is quite a red herring. I have no reason to doubt that Simeon was head of the Jerusalem Church after James died.
It makes sense that a relative of Jesus would be chosen as head of the Church in Jerusalem after Jesus’s brother died.
Also is there any other reference to Thebutis other than by Hegesippus (whose writings we only know since they were referenced by Eusebius)?
Not sure why you’d necessarily think that as the Ebionites denied the divinity of Christ. Also while Tertullian though the Ebionites were followers of Ebion, due to the name of the sect, most scholars because he was mistaken and Ebion came from the Jewish word for poor.
For the sake of argument, let’s take as a given that Paul was a religious charlatan. What difference does that make with respect to this passage about hair? He is using accepted hair length standards to illustrate a point. His audience must have shared those standards, or his point would have been lost.
Sure, Charlatan Paul might lie about meeting Jesus on the road to Damascus, but why would he lie about hair length norms? Especially if his audience would have known him to be lying?
Sorry, but that’s a pretty stupid theory.
If it is, it’s a question about whether women should cover their heads during prayer. That’s what the passage was about. Paul was only using men’s hair length to illustrate his point. Men’s hair length was not the central point of the passage.
Lasciel:
No, but it means they weren’t charlatans.
No, it only means the parishioners in general weren’t charlatans.
The leaders are just as likely to be liars, cheats, and scoundrels as anyone today. Your argument that life was tougher back then doesn’t hold water - otherwise there wouldn’t be any records of any type of criminals back then. There’s absolutely no indication that someone grifting a bunch of religious types would be more or less afraid of the consequences of being caught than any other type of con man, and we know that cons and crimes in general existed at that time in plenty.
Now, I am not saying that anyone under discussion certainly was, or certainly was not. But your contention that charlatans would be too scared to break the law regarding religious belief is countered pretty thoroughly by history itself.
Again-
Depends on what you mean by “long”
http://www.quora.com/Why-is-Jesus-us...shame-unto-him
*Paul’s argument is that men were not to be known for hair that looked like that of women. While this does not indicate the length of Jesus’ hair, it does reveal that He likely had hair shorter than Jewish females of the time. Though some exceptions are found in the Bible of men with long hair (such as Samson and John the Baptist), most Jewish men kept shorter hair to distinguish themselves from women as well as for practical purposes.
Statues of men from this time period generally reveal men with short hair. While nearly all statues from this period were Greco-Roman, the consistent portrayal of short-haired men affirms this was a more likely scenario for Jewish men as well during this time period.
Based on these considerations, Jesus likely had hair that was in the “normal” range for His culture. It would likely not have been down to His shoulders nor was His head likely shaved. Instead, Jesus would have had mid-length hair common in His time. This is not to indicate what the Bible teaches regarding men’s hair, but rather the most likely deduction to answer whether Jesus had long hair during His time on earth.
*There is also Paul’s comment in 1 Corinthians 11:14, “Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him?” The length of Jesus’ hair would have been whatever was culturally appropriate for a man. Jesus’ hair would have looked masculine. Now, what that precisely means is subject to debate. Could His hair have been shoulder length? Possibly. Would Jesus have had a buzz cut or otherwise very short hair? Probably not. The key is that it would have been masculine-looking. And that seems to be Paul’s point in 1 Corinthians 11:3–15. A man’s hair should look masculine. A woman’s hair should look feminine. What this means can differ from culture to culture, but the principle remains, regardless of culture.
So, did Jesus have long hair? The answer depends on what is meant by “long.” Could it have been longer than the typical hair length of men today? Yes. Would it have been so long that it appeared feminine? No.
*
So Jesus quite possibly had longer hair than was he style before the Beatles. But not as long as the very long down to your ass hair favoured by Jewish women in those days. JC likely had shoulder length hair- which wouldnt be what Paul would consider to be “long”.
The mistake you’re making is assuming a uniformity of opinion on the subject based just on Paul’s word. Imagine if, two thousand years from now, one of the few surviving documents from the present is a document from The a Family Research Council that starts off, “As you know, homosexuality is an abomination.” It would be an error to reason, from that one document, that everyone in the 21st century, or even all Christians in the 21st century, agreed with it. It’s reasonable to assume, based on Paul’s writings, that Christians in Corinth in the first century thought long hair on men was unnatural. That doesn’t really tell us what other Christians in other places thought, or what Jesus himself felt about it. It doesn’t necessarily even tell us what Paul thought about the subject, as he could have been tailoring his message to suit the prejudices if that specific audience.
Nor did I say that he wasn’t the head of the Jerusalem church (though whether it happened after James’ death or after the destruction of Rome is an open question).
Perhaps it was unfair to assume that Thebutis and Ebion are the same person. If we take all the sources at face value, then the chronology is as so:
If we merge Thebutis and Ebion, then the chronology becomes:
In either case, the key issue isn’t whether Simeon was or wasn’t Biship of Jerusalem, nor whether he was elected before or after the fall of Jerusalem. The issue is that we have Luke, Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Eutychius all telling us that the Church, in a clump large enough that it’s not worth qualifying in any way, left Jerusalem.
“But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies… Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, and let those who are inside the city depart, and let not those who are out in the country enter it; for these are days of vengeance, to fulfill all that is written.” - God (via Luke)
“The whole body, however, of the church at Jerusalem, having been commanded by a divine revelation, given to men of approved piety there before the war, removed from the city, and dwelt at a certain town beyond the Jordan, called Pella. Here those that believed in Christ, having removed from Jerusalem, as if holy men had entirely abandoned the royal city itself, and the whole land of Judea; the divine justice, for their crimes against Christ and his apostles finally overtook them, totally destroying the whole generation of these evildoers form the earth.” - Eusebius
“For when the city was about to be captured and sacked by the Romans, all the disciples were warned beforehand by an angel to remove from the city, doomed as it was to utter destruction. On migrating from it they settled at Pella, the town already indicated, across the Jordan. It is said to belong to Decapolis”
“Qistus, governor of Jerusalem, died and the city was without any authority or sovereign to govern it. The Jews then arose and rioted and killed James, son of Joseph, known as the ‘brother of the Lord’, stoning him to death (14). Then they harassed a group of disciples and expelled them from the city. The Christians abandoned Jerusalem, crossed the Jordan and settled in those places (15). Informed of this fact, Nero Caesar sent word to the commander stationed in the East, named Vespasian, to rally his troops and go to Judea with orders to kill all the inhabitants, sparing none, and to destroy the houses”
Unless we take these sources to be lying, which based on the criterion of embarrassment, seems unlikely, then we must assume that Simeon’s church was not a meaningful continuation of Jesus and James legacy. Most of everyone had left and formed a new church elsewhere, under the leadership of someone else (Thebutis, Ebion, or otherwise).
Jesus had many relatives, and I would also assume that any leaders chosen would be from among them. There’s no reason to think that Thebutis was some random dude, if he was the main competition for the position. If he was able to take “The Church” away from Jerusalem, it’s a reasonable assumption that he had some powerful backing - which would probably mean the family of Christ and, if so, would probably be because he was part of it.
There isn’t.
I didn’t say anything one way or the other on the subject of Christ’s divinity, nor what the Ebionite’s opinion was on the matter? If you’re interested in the theology of the Ebionites, I would encourage you to investigate and learn more.
I’m not sure what you mean. If you’re saying that his name wasn’t Ebion, then sure, I’d agree that it’s just as likely either a nickname or distortion of his real name. If you’re saying that scholars think that the leader of the Ebionites was never known as Ebion at all, well great, but there’s no reason to think that there wasn’t a key person in the church and there’s no reason to not call him Ebion for simplicity’s sake. Or at least not unless you have reason to believe that the church in Pella would have dropped the concept of church leadership?
Fundamentally, this isn’t really a quibble that matters one way or the other unless you’re really interested in proper names. I’m generally doubtful that Simon’s family name was Magus, for example, but it doesn’t really matter so long as we all know what we’re talking about.
If a Brigham Young announced in a document that long hair was an abomination, and we knew nothing else about Joseph Smith’s appearance, that would be a pretty good clue that Joseph Smith didn’t have long hair.
Again, define 'long". What we consider long hair is not what Paul or even Brigham Young would think of as “long”.
Even if we had sources that were more reliable saying that Joseph Smith thought that one should never cut your hair, bathe, nor eat meat?
We have no such sources with respect to Jesus.
DrDeth, we get your point about “long” being relative.
Apparently not.
The J man sported a mullet:
Pious up front
Malcontent in the rear.
Brigham Young actually knew Joseph Smith.
Imagine they’d never actually met. Wouldn’t you still trust that Young, a contemporary of Smith, steeped in the faith and surrounded by people who actually knew him, would have some notion of Smith’s appearance? If Young wrote that long hair was shameful, wouldn’t you still reasonably assume Joseph Smith probably didn’t have long hair? Of course you would.
You seem oddly invested in the idea that Jesus had short hair.