All these portraits depict jesus as having long hair...
1 Corinthians 11:14
Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him,
(if im taking it out of context please show me how, and explain it in full context, otherwise, dont bother --- last i checked it didnt say, "unless your jesus, or samson")
2007-02-05 08:06:12 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
LOL, shoulder length is still long...
2007-02-05 08:10:15 · update #1
Those portraits are just pictures of what the artists THINKS Jesus looked like. They don't know for sure.
2007-02-05 08:15:24 · answer #1 · answered by ac28 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Jesus having long hair is a tradition made up by catholics...it has absolutely no significance. We don't have any paintings done of the real Jesus...no one has even recorded any occurance of a person painting an actual depiction. Most of the famous portraits were done in the renaissance period, shortly before and shortly after where it was common for a man to have long hair...it was an honorable thing.
Its proven scientifically that the average male had dark brownish hair, very short, and very matted. The aveage hair cut was probably done with a blunt sharp object such as a dagger or sword.
Its also proven that Jesus was more of a darker skin color than what the catholics portray...more like the tone of a hispanic, as with everyone else in those days. You have to remember there were no pale girls that stayed indoors back then. The average house was big enough to eat and sleep in. They weren't designed to live in for weeks and months at a time like today
2007-02-05 16:09:29 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
the portraits depict Jesus in a way that the people of that time could best identify with Him.
If the Eskimos painted a picture of Jesus, it would likely show Him wearing a fur suit and chomping on some blubber.
2007-02-05 16:10:44 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Well, 1 Corinthians 11:14 was written by Paul, not Jesus. Paul was a Roman citizen and Romans had short hair, so it is not surprising that he would say something like that.
Jesus was a Hebrew who had long hair.
2007-02-05 16:09:30 · answer #4 · answered by aroundworldsports 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋
the women's hair was long all the way to their waist or longer, and you have to remember the pictures we see are from artist that never laid an eye on him they are painting from the time period of what they think he would look like, just like they have him with blue eyes and blond hair, but i do have a picture of Jesus with short hair, but i like the ones with it at his shoulders better, and who knows that may not have been consider short as compared to the women's,
2007-02-05 16:29:31 · answer #5 · answered by purpleaura1 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
they are talking in symbolics that is to say that if a man dresses to look like a woman to seduce other man it is a disgrace and also the bible says if a woman dresses so she can take the place of a man to seduce another woman that also is a shame.
and yes gays can go to heaven our god is fair in all things. p.s. I don't write it i just explain it. god bless swindled. p.p.s Christ skin was a little darker because he was full blooded Jew
2007-02-05 16:24:12 · answer #6 · answered by swindled 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
all those portraits you speak of are human depictions of the way Jesus looked when He came to earth as a man.
Jesus does not look like that now.
Jesus Christ is God and He looks like God!!
2007-02-05 16:10:04 · answer #7 · answered by Chef Bob 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Shoulder length hair is not the same as hair down to your butt.
2007-02-05 16:08:41 · answer #8 · answered by Dysthymia 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Portraits.....exactly..... somehow I don't think Jesus posed for any of these 'portraits'.
2007-02-05 19:08:38 · answer #9 · answered by RedHeadGirl 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Bible is a very complex book and it can be misunderstood. We all can read the Bible and get different meanings.
2007-02-05 16:14:26 · answer #10 · answered by Gerry 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋