Why are Christians ashamed of Jesus?

[Avoice]

It is sad that Christians are ashamed of Jesus.

For centuries they have been drawing him like a European. With blue eyes and sandy blond (light brown) hair.

He was from the Middle East. They know what men from the Middle East look like. Black hair and brown eyes. And darker skin.

If they must have an image why don't they draw him in truth? They don't.
Christians find their false image of Jesus comforting. Looking at it with such admiration. What if he looked like Sadaam Hussein? And wore jeans and a tshirt?

How will Christians recognize Jesus? By wearing a white robe with arms outstretched? Looking like the guy in the Last Supper painting?

[Clownboat]

I told just my opinion. I don't think it dishonors Jesus, for example because it is possible he had no chance to cut his hair, but obviously you or other people may think differently.

According to the Bible, long hair is a dishonor for a man. Your opinion goes against the Bible, but you do you.
A man that has the ability to conjure up food but can't cut his hair is a silly notion and one that should be rejected as a valid explanation.

Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him?
(1 Corinthians 11:14)

[1213]

...Then Paul shouldn't have been issuing his condemnation of long hair on men as if it were God's commandment, and the men to whom he was writing had every right to ignore what he wrote.

If we read the context, I think it is clearly not as God's commandment, because the matter is to be judged among the people and it is about custom. However, it can still be correct idea that it is not a good thing for a man to have long hair, even if it is not a direct commandment.

You judge among yourselves: is it fitting for a woman to pray to God unveiled? Or does not nature herself teach you that if a man indeed wears long hair, it is a dishonor to him? But if a woman wears her hair long, it is a glory to her; because the hair has been given to her corresponding to a veil. But if anyone thinks to be contentious, we do not have such a custom, nor the churches of God.
1 Cor. 11:13-16

But, in any case, I think it is not useful to speculate about this, because we don't know how was his hair.

Then we can discount the Turin cloth.

I wouldn't do so, but you are free to do so, if you want.

And in the end, there could be a good reason for long hair, which is why it would not be a problem

Then what Paul writes is again invalidated.

I think it could still be valid, some times it just may be that person can't do something and then it is not his fault and therefore not dishonorable. Or what do you say, a person not having a child was also considered dishonorable, if person just can't have a baby, is it his fault, would it the be dishonorable for the person?

Maybe you have better images than I have, but I think it is not clear enough to tell does it show hair or not.

Run a Google search for "Shroud of Turin" and select "images". A bunch of them will come up. Select one showing the rear image and zoom in on the back of the head. You'll see that there is no image of a cloth there. You can see sharp-edged images of the alleged blood stains from the crown of thorns, which would not be visible if a cloth had been over them.

By the images I find, it could be that there was a cloth over his head. It would not prevent the blood stains.

However, it is interesting how was the image made, if it shows both sides of the person. Not very easy to make.

Actually, it would be easy to make if it isn't a real person. We see a straight-on front image and a straight-on back image. What we don't see is a wrap-around distortion between front and back, which should be there if the cloth had been wrapped over a three-dimensional body.

Actually that depends on how the image happened. If it was for example by some kind of radiation, the images would go in the direction of the radiation. And then it is possible that the sides would not make or have any image.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to 1213 in post #42]

You judge among yourselves: is it fitting for a woman to pray to God unveiled? Or does not nature herself teach you that if a man indeed wears long hair, it is a dishonor to him? But if a woman wears her hair long, it is a glory to her; because the hair has been given to her corresponding to a veil. But if anyone thinks to be contentious, we do not have such a custom, nor the churches of God.
1 Cor. 11:13-16

I'm not a scholar of Greek, but I notice that the word in v. 13 is "κρίνω" (krino) which is a verb, and the word in v. 16 is "συνήθεια" (synētheia), which is a noun. From what I can tell, at least in English translations, Paul is directing his readers to adopt his judgement on the matter. He does state flat-out in verse 7, "A man ought not to cover his head", then goes on to assert that a woman should not pray with her head uncovered and that her hair is given to her as a cover, but doesn't explain why she would need a covering for her covering. The whole thing seems to make very little sense.


Then what Paul writes is again invalidated.

I think it could still be valid, some times it just may be that person can't do something and then it is not his fault and therefore not dishonorable. Or what do you say, a person not having a child was also considered dishonorable, if person just can't have a baby, is it his fault, would it the be dishonorable for the person?

This has nothing to do with having a baby; it's about hair, which is a lot easier to manage.

By the images I find, it could be that there was a cloth over his head. It would not prevent the blood stains.

Then why are the edges of the alleged blood stains as well-defined on the back of the head, where they would be under a cloth, as they are on the bare forehead?


Actually, it would be easy to make if it isn't a real person. We see a straight-on front image and a straight-on back image. What we don't see is a wrap-around distortion between front and back, which should be there if the cloth had been wrapped over a three-dimensional body.

Actually that depends on how the image happened. If it was for example by some kind of radiation, the images would go in the direction of the radiation. And then it is possible that the sides would not make or have any image.

Radiation emanating from a three-dimensional object, like a body, would go out in all directions.

[1213]

...Then why are the edges of the alleged blood stains as well-defined on the back of the head, where they would be under a cloth, as they are on the bare forehead?....

Bible tells Jesus had a "grave cloth" on his head. It is possible it covered the whole head and caused the hair like shadows in the image. Maybe it covered also the face side, which would explain the similarity. Or, perhaps the stains are well defined, because he was lying on his back and the blood had better chance to permeate through the cloth.

And the grave cloth which was on His head was not lying with the linens, but was wrapped up in one place by itself.
John 20:7

[Athetotheist]

...Then why are the edges of the alleged blood stains as well-defined on the back of the head, where they would be under a cloth, as they are on the bare forehead?....

Bible tells Jesus had a "grave cloth" on his head. It is possible it covered the whole head and caused the hair like shadows in the image. Maybe it covered also the face side, which would explain the similarity. Or, perhaps the stains are well defined, because he was lying on his back and the blood had better chance to permeate through the cloth.

And the grave cloth which was on His head was not lying with the linens, but was wrapped up in one place by itself.
John 20:7

If the grave cloth covered his whole head, then the image of his head should have been left on the head cloth instead of on the shroud itself.

And by the time he was laid in the tomb, his blood would have been coagulating and would not have penetrated much of the cloth. And even if it had penetrated the cloth, that would have made the stains run together and again they wouldn't be well-defined.

[1213]

If the grave cloth covered his whole head, then the image of his head should have been left on the head cloth instead of on the shroud itself.

I think that depends on how the image actually was formed. I don't see why it could not be in both.

And by the time he was laid in the tomb, his blood would have been coagulating and would not have penetrated much of the cloth. And even if it had penetrated the cloth, that would have made the stains run together and again they wouldn't be well-defined.

Maybe. I would have to need to examine the shroud more closely to tell how it is.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to 1213 in post #46]

I think that depends on how the image actually was formed.

Since it doesn't display the features of a three-dimensional body, it wasn't formed realistically.

I don't see why it could not be in both.

You're drawing an assumption of a second miraculous image from your assumption that there was a first miraculous image.

[JehovahsWitness]

I told just my opinion. I don't think it dishonors Jesus, for example because it is possible he had no chance to cut his hair, but obviously you or other people may think differently.

Theres no good reason to believe Jesus had long hair; it was not customary for Jewish men to have long hair. The hairstyles of the time indicate men generally keot their hair relatively short.





RELATED POSTS

Did Jesus have long hair?
viewtopic.php?p=947656#p947656

What did Jesus look like?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 94#p925494

What did Paul mean that "nature" teaches us about hair?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 27#p814927
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 44#p866744

Are the Apostles Peter and Paul prohibiting the wearing of gold and the braiding of hair?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 31#p797831

Why did Paul speak of long hair only for women since Samson had long hair?
viewtopic.php?p=1088325#p1088325

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

JESUS CHRIST, APPEARANCE, and ...JEHOVAH'S WITNESS ARTWORK

[Clownboat]

There's no good reason to believe Jesus had long hair; it was not customary for Jewish men to have long hair. The hairstyles of the time indicate men generally kept their hair relatively short.

1213 argues for a long haired Jesus to try to fit in the Shroud of Turin narrative. This is not a good reason to believe that Jesus had long hair and others have also pointed out valid reasons as to why Jesus would not have had long hair.

As the saying goes, you cannot reason a person out of a position that they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

[1213]

1213 argues for a long haired Jesus to try to fit in the Shroud of Turin narrative...

Sorry if I have been unclear. I think the Shroud of Turin doesn't necessary show long hair. And I think it is possible that it is not even an image of Jesus. Also, I don't claim Jesus had long hair. I just think it could have been possible.