Should Christians update their main image of Jesus?

Question

"Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory?" 1 Corinthians 11: 14-15, NIV

I'm referring to how the Christian view of Jesus may be in need of updating.

Answer 1

we aren't even supposed to have pictures of Jesus. Hanging a portrait of Jesus in our homes would seem to present a continual temptation to reduce Him to nothing more than the image in the picture. Even if we are not bowing down and worshiping the picture, how can we not eventually equate Him in our minds with this simple image? How can we look at it every day and not be tempted to see Him as merely the figure in the picture? But can we possibly reduce Christ’s nature, character and power to a two-dimensional, eight-by-ten portrait? In addition, most of the “portraits” of Jesus portray Him in a softened, quasi-romantic style as a handsome and winsome young man while, in fact, He “had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him” (Isaiah 53:2). If it were important for us to know what He really did look like, Matthew, Peter and John, who spent three years with Him, would certainly be able to give us an accurate description, as would His own brother, Jude. Yet, these New Testament writers offer no details about His physical attributes. Does this not suggest that, inspired by the Holy Spirit, they did so in order to carefully avoid encouraging us to make any image of Him? Most of the images we have of Jesus today are probably not accurate. Jesus was a Jew, so He likely had dark skin, dark eyes, and dark hair. This is a far cry from the blond-haired, blue-eyed, fair-skinned Jesus in many modern pictures.

You are right about the long hair because it says in the Bible that long hair is shameful to a man and certainly Jesus would not have done anything shameful and wrong in Gods eyes

Answer 2

Yes, but see, I think people judge things by their own standards. What was considered long back then. The men probably did keep it longer, you know, they really couldn't run to the supercuts. So they would probably lop it off with a knife and it was shorther than a woman, who had it down to her ***. I mean, Jesus and his disiples probably looked pretty simalar to the original stage cast of Hair or something. Hippies. Plus, I find that a wierd thing to have in the Bible. Didn't Samson have a **** load of hair.

Answer 3

UPDATE????? What, bring Jesus back to life and redecorarte Him, or give Him a facelift, shave and a haircut? Give Him a Mercedes and sunglasses?
Update? Sheesh! What, give Him a computer too?

Answer 4

Sorry, but Jesus is not a Ken Doll. We can not change Him or His appearence to fit our idea of Him. We must accept Him for who He is. The Creator of the Universe.

Answer 5

That is a man made picture of Jesus
That is not what he looked like at all

Answer 6

Not only should his hair be shorter but he should be wearing a crown instead of swaddling clothes.

Answer 7

No. Nothing wrong with the image of Christ but every thing is wrong with the Christian understanding of Christ.

Answer 8

It has constantly been updated ...... Jesus is a Jew from middle east .... he should look like Osman Bin Laden ..... but in the picture he looks like a regular white guy ... .go figure.

Answer 9

They must do as they see fit. They cannot help it. None of us can.

Answer 10

They should give him dreadlocks.