Are images of Jesus allowed?

[ViaCrucis]

Question:

How come every time this subject comes up?

Males with long hair become short tempered?

grace and peace .........

I can't speak for any of the other men here, but I keep my hair pretty short. That's because my hair is naturally quite curly and so tends to "grow big" rather than grow long. And I just happen to like keeping my hair pretty short, I think my hair looks better that way--at least for the time being while I still have my hair.

My guess is that the people you are engaging with in these discussions aren't short tempered, and aren't bothered because they have long hair--but because you aren't providing any meaningful substance to your statements, you are merely presenting your subjective opinion as though it were Scripture and doing things like calling long hair "effeminate" and accusing certain pictures of Jesus as "satanic mockeries" all because of how you, personally, feel. You've made claims, but have not backed them up. You keep quoting the same passage of Scripture, but then treat your very specific interpretation and subjective opinions about it as though they were the same as that Scripture.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[GenemZ]

Somebody hasn't read the thread.

But has read the mind of some who post here.

 

[GenemZ]

My guess is that the people you are engaging with in these discussions aren't short tempered, and aren't bothered because they have long hair--but because you aren't providing any meaningful substance to your statements,

-CryptoLutheran

They want me to go beyond what is written, so they can attack that.
For they do not want to deal with what IS WRITTEN!

"Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him."

1 Cor 11:14​

That they can not attack. But, ask someone to tell you what they think that means??????? Is inviting a diversion to attack.

" man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him." ​

Its not rocket science.....

Its a simple command.

Like this was a simple command as well...

"but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,
for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”​

How simple can God get?
But? Someone will always find a way to deny.

"Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him."

1 Cor 11:14​

............

 

[ViaCrucis]

They want me to go beyond what is written, so they can attack that.
For they do not want to deal with what IS WRITTEN!

"Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him."

1 Cor 11:14​

That they can not attack. But, ask someone to tell you what they think that means??????? Is inviting a diversion to attack.

" man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him." ​

Its not rocket science.....

Its a simple command.

Like this was a simple command as well...

"but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,
for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”​

How simple can God get?
But? Someone will always find a way to deny.

"Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him."

1 Cor 11:14​

............

Okay, well then, my hair is currently longer than it was six months ago. It's about 2.5 inches long right now, give or take. So is 2.5 inches a disgrace because it's longer now than it was six months ago when I cut it last? Exactly how long can my hair get before it is a disgrace for me? Biblical answers only.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Roymond]

Question:

How come every time this subject comes up?

Males with long hair become short tempered?

grace and peace .........

Question:

How come you won't give us your definition of "long hair"? There have been times an places in European history when just-above the shoulder would have been considered normal, not long, and others when more then about three finger-widths would have been regarded as long, and yet others when this was considered manly:

So the term "long hair" is sort of meaningless without a definition.

 

[Roymond]

OK... that shows you read it.. Thank you.

Image of youth indicates that they kept their hair relatively short as well. That was the style.

Curling does not mean long hair..

"Curled and dyed" points to the "hairdo" interpretation being suggested here.

 

[Roymond]

They want me to go beyond what is written, so they can attack that.
For they do not want to deal with what IS WRITTEN!

No one has suggested such a thing. In actuality, you're the one who's afraid of what is written -- if you weren't you'd give a definition of (1) what you think Paul meant by "long" and (2) why you think that's what he meant.

I must say you're providing a wonderful example of how not to interpret scripture: assume you know what it means without studying, refuse to actually studied when asked to, and insist that you're right and that anyone who disagrees with you is refusing to "deal with what IS WRITTEN". In practice that means you're the one who is refusing to deal with what is written because you can't be bothered to examine the words and ask "What did Paul mean by this word?"

See, the first thing you should do when aiming to interpret what any passage in ancient literature, including the Bible, is to start off in a position of assuming that you have no idea what the writer meant -- only then you can work to find out what he actually meant rather than just sticking your definitions to words into what he wrote. You're plainly doing the latter, which is why people are asking where you are getting your ideas.

 

[Roymond]

I can't speak for any of the other men here, but I keep my hair pretty short. That's because my hair is naturally quite curly and so tends to "grow big" rather than grow long. And I just happen to like keeping my hair pretty short, I think my hair looks better that way--at least for the time being while I still have my hair.

My guess is that the people you are engaging with in these discussions aren't short tempered, and aren't bothered because they have long hair--but because you aren't providing any meaningful substance to your statements, you are merely presenting your subjective opinion as though it were Scripture and doing things like calling long hair "effeminate" and accusing certain pictures of Jesus as "satanic mockeries" all because of how you, personally, feel. You've made claims, but have not backed them up. You keep quoting the same passage of Scripture, but then treat your very specific interpretation and subjective opinions about it as though they were the same as that Scripture.

-CryptoLutheran

It's probably not very nice of me, but rather than being "short-tempered" I'm actually rather amused. It's exactly like Greek students who insist that a Greek word means what they think it does and their definition comes from having grown up with a certain translation of the scriptures so when they read a verse in Greek they're mentally just 'hearing' those familiar words -- which is why learning Koine Greek should never, ever start with reading anything at all from the Bible; at least a year should be spent reading more ancient Greek such as Xenophon or Aristophanes, literature never encountered before so there are no preconceptions.

And the defense brought up by those who have failed to actually study the scriptures, whether in Greek or in translation, is always that people who disagree are just opposing the scriptures, when in reality they're just trying to learn what the scriptures actually say.

The Bible is more than just ancient literature, but it is ever less than that, so always begin with the assumption that everything you think about a passage is wrong -- only then are you ready to receive the actual meaning.

 

[Roymond]

They want me to go beyond what is written, so they can attack that.
For they do not want to deal with what IS WRITTEN!

"Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him."

1 Cor 11:14​

That they can not attack. But, ask someone to tell you what they think that means??????? Is inviting a diversion to attack.

" man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him." ​

Its not rocket science.....

Its a simple command.

Like this was a simple command as well...

"but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,
for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”​

How simple can God get?
But? Someone will always find a way to deny.

"Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him."

1 Cor 11:14​

............

To me, this is a simple command:

πάντα δὲ εὐσχημόνως καὶ κατὰ τάξιν γινέσθω.

If anyone asks questions about it, should my response be, "You're trying to avoid the text"?

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Jewish men, other than those who had taken a Nazarite vow.... did not wear long hair.

Jesus was a Jew. Given the fact that he drank wine? Jesus was not under a Nazarite vow.

And, Judas needed to point Jesus out with a kiss. One reason? He wore hair like the typical Jewish young man. Like everyone else.

Absalom had long hair and the Scriptures made it a point to make it known. It was not the norm in Israel. Same for Samson.

Yeshua, we know, would have had peyot and a beard..."You shall not round off the corner of your head, and you shall not destroy the edge of your beard." John the baptist would have had very long hair and a beard because he was a nazarite since birth.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Most Roman men kept their hair relatively short as a sign of dignity and control.

Roman haircare - Corinium Museum

Which is why, Paul, being a Roman citizen, says what he did...

 

[ViaCrucis]

Which is why, Paul, being a Roman citizen, says what he did...

And that's key here--Paul is emphatically speaking from within a Greco-Roman context.

I also think there is some worth in considering what else Paul says in this passage. How are we to read, "And if anyone is contentious, neither us nor the churches of God have such a custom." I'm definitively not educated in Koine, but I've seen diverse opinions from those who are. I've seen some who argue that Paul is criticizing the contentiousness, and others argue that Paul was making a point but not establishing a divine commandment concerning hair. I have tended to lean toward the latter interpretation, especially in light of the fact that it seems uncharacteristic of Paul to impose legalistic and moralistic rules about trivial things such as hair; and had there been a specific divine commandment then surely there would be some kind of objective standard set for what constitutes permissible haircuts. Instead, Paul seems to be trying to make a culturally informed point, but doesn't want to be taken as saying that this is some legalistic and moralistic demand to be placed upon the Faithful.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[GenemZ]

Question:

How come you won't give us your definition of "long hair"? There have been times an places in European history when just-above the shoulder would have been considered normal, not long, and others when more then about three finger-widths would have been regarded as long, and yet others when this was considered manly:
View attachment 324762

So the term "long hair" is sort of meaningless without a definition.

They wore wigs for fashion back then...

Four Presidents, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and James Monroe did indeed wear wigs.

 

[GenemZ]

"Curled and dyed" points to the "hairdo" interpretation being suggested here.

Where did we go from 'long' hair? To hairdo?

Many Roman men wore their hair quite short. Men with longer hair would still not constitute 'long' hair. But, rather?
Longer hair.

The long hair that Paul mention spoke specifically of hair like a woman's length in that day. For he was explaining how a Christian woman's hair served as a covering for her head. From what I read online, women who wore it short were imitating the temple prostitutes in Corinth.

Keep in mind we are not dictating fashion for our day and age. But for the day in which it was written.

The purpose we are trying to establish? Not hair as we have been bantering about. But, what Jesus looked like. Not about rules for today's correct fashion.

The rule in Jesus day was that men did not wear long hair.

 

[prodromos]

Yeshua, we know, would have had peyot and a beard..."You shall not round off the corner of your head, and you shall not destroy the edge of your beard." John the baptist would have had very long hair and a beard because he was a nazarite since birth.

John the Baptist probably had long hair, but hair length also depends on genetics. I haven't cut my hair for over two years and it never goes beyond my shoulders. Some africans have extremely short hair despite never cutting it in their life. Same with beards. some men can't grow a beard to save their life while others grow beards down to their waist.

 

[dzheremi]

Boy oh boy...such an argument concerning hair in this thread. Truly the Lord manifest His wisdom to me by causing me to begin losing my hair pretty much the minute I turned 35, thereby saving me from having much to say on the topic. Haha.

 

[GenemZ]

The purpose we are trying to establish? Not hair length on a man as we have been bantering about.
But, about what Jesus looked like. Not about rules for today's correct fashion.

The rule in Jesus day was that men did not wear long hair.

 

[dzheremi]

Well I can't say anything one way or another regarding the rules for western icons or religious art, but in Orthodoxy the icon is not meant to be a photo-realistic portrait of its subject (whether Christ of not), so this whole discussion just seems strange and to be missing the point. Icons express spiritual truths and realities according to the conventions established within the Church that produces them (so there are most definitely still rules; 'Hippie Jesus' does not fly at all), rather than being fixated on the fleshly appearance.

 

[GenemZ]

Well I can't say anything one way or another regarding the rules for western icons or religious art, but in Orthodoxy the icon is not meant to be a photo-realistic portrait of its subject (whether Christ of not), so this whole discussion just seems strange and to be missing the point. Icons express spiritual truths and realities according to the conventions established within the Church that produces them (so there are most definitely still rules; 'Hippie Jesus' does not fly at all), rather than being fixated on the fleshly appearance.

Orthodoxy involves how the Scriptures are exegeted and soundly interpreted.

Many can claim orthodoxy, as I witnessed as a Jew concerning Orthodoxy in Judaism. It was wrong. But, thought itself solely being correct.

Orthodoxy in Christianity involves three principles in approach. Isagogics, Categories and Exegesis = "ICE"



Isagogics is the study of the Bible in its historical context, including the human writer, the recipients, and the time in which they lived.

Categories refers to a topical compilation of doctrine, so that one can approach the Bible on a line-by-line-precept-by-precept basis, and cross-reference Scripture effectively.

Exegesis involves studying the grammar, syntax, and etymology of the original languages of Scripture, so that one is not relying on intermediate translations which may obscure or lose meanings.



Today... a pastor-teacher who faithfully follows those three principles of interpretation (while being filled with Spirit) is what constitutes Orthodox.

grace and peace......

 

[dzheremi]

When I write Orthodoxy, I am referring to being a baptized, communing member of the Orthodox Church (Coptic, Syriac, Ethiopian, etc.), not anything involving what Jews do or don't do, since Judaism is not a form of Christianity to begin with. In the context of that post, I thought it was clear enough that I was talking about the purpose and meaning of iconography within Orthodox Christianity, which is obviously related to Orthodox exegesis (as we offer nothing else, insofar as the interpretation of the scriptures themselves are concerned), but isn't the same thing as it. (i.e., interpreting the scriptures is interpreting the scriptures; venerating an icon is venerating an icon; they are obviously related, particularly as icons serve as a form of 'visual scripture' for those who are not literate, but they are not the same activity.)