 |
The Town Hall Archives
Ahh, the nostalgia.
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Lip Rings |
| Gravy |
|
21% |
[ 7 ] |
| Gross |
|
78% |
[ 26 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 33 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Erica Clark
Junior Member
Joined: 24 Nov 2002
Posts: 162
|
 Posted: Mon Dec 23, 2002 7:35 pm Post subject: |
|
ok, excuse me for abruptly jumping in, but I just wanna throw some stuff out there...
ok, I'm 1000% with the whole "he also didn't have a yellow halo above his head, could never have afforded to wear a white robe with a blue sash and did not have pale white skin." thang...I've always wanted to see an illustration with a really rugged, strong, middle eastern looking Jesus...instead of the caucasian, pasty wimp you usually see...
that being said, there's no way Jesus had a crew cut...lack of technology and time and attention would be the deciding factors...he probably had a hairstyle that would be offensive to some factions of organized christianity...the reason I say this, is Jesus wasn't concerned with the physical like he was the spiritual, so he would not have made a big deal out of his hair...I'm sure he kept it trimmed to keep it out of his way, but trust me he didn't have a little hair dresser following him around to make sure he had an ultra conservative look to him...to think that is just naive...
by the standard of his day (i.e. the hairlength of the women of his culture) I'm sure his hair was short...but likewise I'm also sure that he would not be approved by baptist standards... (excuse the stereotype) |
|
 |
anna k
Seasoned Veteran Member
Joined: 23 Nov 2002
Posts: 606
Location: Minnesota
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 23, 2002 8:47 pm Post subject: |
|
I agree with Jared, and Dr Blackgaard.
Very well stated!  |
|
|
Jared
Cute and Cuddly
Joined: 23 Nov 2002
Posts: 4672
Location: Pennsylvania
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 24, 2002 8:01 am Post subject: |
|
| Erica Clark wrote: | that being said, there's no way Jesus had a crew cut...lack of technology and time and attention would be the deciding factors...he probably had a hairstyle that would be offensive to some factions of organized christianity...the reason I say this, is Jesus wasn't concerned with the physical like he was the spiritual, so he would not have made a big deal out of his hair...I'm sure he kept it trimmed to keep it out of his way, but trust me he didn't have a little hair dresser following him around to make sure he had an ultra conservative look to him...to think that is just naive...
by the standard of his day (i.e. the hairlength of the women of his culture) I'm sure his hair was short...but likewise I'm also sure that he would not be approved by baptist standards... (excuse the stereotype) |
Most haircuts don't require a lot of technology. Obviously, Jesus didn't wear a military-style buzz cut. However, Jewish LAW would have forbidden him from growing it long. In case you were wondering, the well over one hundred Jewish laws concerning appearance are far more stringent than the "rules" of us Baptists... Sure, Jesus was constantly opposing the rulers of the land, but why would he break a law for no reason? Even if God doesn't consider it wrong to have long hair (If Paul, inspired of God, says it that even nature teaches us that it is a shame for a man to have long hair, I'll go with it, though!), what possible reason would Jesus have for breaking the law? The Bible tells us to be in submission to the ruling authorities, only refusing to comply if doing so would be a direct violation of God's precepts. Surely you won't say that it's wrong TO have short hair, would you? So why would the Lord break the law AND do something that even He considers shameful?
No, he didn't have a barber in his entourage; in fact, I very much doubt that anyone made a living back then cutting hair. As you said, instruments weren't extremely precise, so people could do just as well cutting it theirselves, which is what I imagine Jesus did. However his hair got cut, though, there is no doubt in my mind that it was short. Buzz cut? Of course not. But it was NOT long.
Yes, hair was probably an extremely minor concern for Christ, but that doesn't mean that He ignored it. Think about how many minor things you do each day, each week. Besides, Jesus may not have been as busy as you imagine. He preached incredible sermons, but unlike pastors today, he didn't need to prepare for them. God always knows what He wants to say... He taught his disciples personally, they ate, they travelled, they prayed. But what once it gets dark? They have no outside lights, you know; travel would be halted, there'd be nothing to do outside of where they were dwelling. A lamp or fire would be their light and in my opinion, Jesus and his disciples would have ample time. Think about it: in at 6 or 7... no computer, no TV, not even an electric light. What are you going to do all night? Surely it wouldn't take away from the time he needed to do on earth to cut his hair occasionally! |
|
|
silverICE
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 24, 2002 11:55 am Post subject: ok i have a Q? |
|
So Jared, you say that Jesus did not have long hair, but what exactly was the definition of long hair in his day. Could it be fairly differnent from our definition?
Nick
8) |
|
|
Erica Clark
Junior Member
Joined: 24 Nov 2002
Posts: 162
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 26, 2002 5:56 pm Post subject: |
|
Actually there are more old testament laws about NOT cutting the hair than cutting it...
anyways, this is all subjective. In the same way that in Jesus' day, the clothing differences of the sexes was not defined by men wearing pants and women skirts, my point is that "long" today could well have been considered "short" back then...for example, above shoulder length could have been a practical, "short" length (well within the confines of the available technology) when compared to the female length of the day. Now of course this is all conjecture, since no one knows how long his hair was, and not that it matters anyways... |
|
|
Sydney Bristow Vaughn
Cursor Always on Submit Button Member
Joined: 27 Nov 2002
Posts: 874
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 26, 2002 6:41 pm Post subject: |
|
I have found myself refraining from posting further in this thread, merely because if you take a step back from it, you realize how completely meaningless the whole discussion is, but just to throw a statement in...
Christ went around "breaking" laws every so often. (I call to your attention the passage where it talks about the disciples getting into trouble w/ the Pharisees for plucking heads of grain on the Sabbath.) If he is Lord of the sabbath, then it must definitely follow that he is Lord of hair lengths.
If Christ DID have long hair, would that invalidate who he is? what he taught? what he did? If it does, then I pity you, for if that can shake your faith, you really don't have any.
Now I shall step back into attempting to ignore the outright stupidity of this arguing. |
|
|
Jacob Isom
Seasoned Veteran Member
Joined: 23 Nov 2002
Posts: 599
Location: Ohio
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 26, 2002 7:31 pm Post subject: |
|
| Well said. It is an interesting conversation though. |
|
|
Jared
Cute and Cuddly
Joined: 23 Nov 2002
Posts: 4672
Location: Pennsylvania
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 26, 2002 9:59 pm Post subject: |
|
| Sydney Bristow Vaughn wrote: | | Christ went around "breaking" laws every so often. (I call to your attention the passage where it talks about the disciples getting into trouble w/ the Pharisees for plucking heads of grain on the Sabbath.) If he is Lord of the sabbath, then it must definitely follow that he is Lord of hair lengths. |
There's a huge difference in breaking laws for a reason and breaking laws for no reason, first of all. Secondly, the Sabbath laws at that time were not public laws but were believed to be spiritual ones. Jesus, however, knew that the Jewish leaders were misinterpretting the laws and made that clear. Jesus did not, however, break laws just to break them.
| Quote: | | If Christ DID have long hair, would that invalidate who he is? what he taught? what he did? If it does, then I pity you, for if that can shake your faith, you really don't have any. |
What isn't true can't shake my faith. It's simply impossible for Christ to have long hair, for Christ can never contradict himself on any issue, large or, as in this case, small. If God considers it shameful for a man to have long hair, Christ could not have had long hair, for He did NOTHING shameful, nothind displeasing to His father. He was and is God!
| Quote: | | Now I shall step back into attempting to ignore the outright stupidity of this arguing. |
Abd why exactly is this stupid? I'm just arguing based on what the Bible says. According to the Word of God, it's a shame for a man to have long hair. Shouldn't that be the end of the story? |
|
|
Erica Clark
Junior Member
Joined: 24 Nov 2002
Posts: 162
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 27, 2002 12:16 am Post subject: |
|
actually that would be according to nature, according to paul's rhetorical question...which raises an interesting question: what part of Paul's audience's social, cultural backdrop would prompt them to view "nature" as revealing that long hair on a man to be a shame to him...?
because what if it doesn't? |
|
|
Jared
Cute and Cuddly
Joined: 23 Nov 2002
Posts: 4672
Location: Pennsylvania
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 27, 2002 7:23 am Post subject: |
|
"Does not even nature itself teach you...?"
Kind of like saying, "Doesn't it go without saying that...?"
Look at the word "even." It's not JUST nature teaching that it's shameful for a man to have long hair, because that word "even" is in there. Someone is teaching it and even nature agrees. That Someone is of course God. Paul is saying that it should go without saying, that you should know already that if a man hath long hair, it is a shame unto him! |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Search
Memberlist
Log in
