new thread
There are plenty of idiots with web pages devoted to 'proving' that jesus didn't have long hair, but I found this site
http://www.shroud.com/faq.htm#7
where the author, an authority on the Turin shroud in particular and biblical matters in general comes up with some very good arguments to show that
a) Jesus DID have long hair
b) there are no valid Christian objections to men having long hair.
So next time we get a posting from one of the idiots, we can direct him to this site.
The shroud of Turin is a woven cloth about 14 feet long and 3 1/2 feet wide which has an image of a man on it. The image is believed by many to be the image of Jesus of Nazareth, and the shroud is believed to be his burial shroud. The image is believed not to be a painting, but rather a negative image of a crucified Christ. The shroud is kept in the cathedral of St. John the Baptist in Turin, Italy.
Historically, the Shroud of Turin is one of some forty reputed burial cloths of Jesus, although it is the only one to bear the apparent imprints and bloodstains of a crucified man. Religious critics have stated for quite some time now that the Turin shroud is incompatible with the Bible. John 20:5-7 describes multiple burial wrappings, including a separate “napkin” that covered Jesus’ face.
The Turin cloth first appeared in France in the mid 14th century. At that time the local bishop uncovered an artist who confessed he had painted the image. In 1389, Pope Clement VII officially declared the shroud to be only a painted “representation.” Years later, this finding was oh so conveniently forgotten by the granddaughter of the original owner. She sold it to the House of Savoy, which later became the Italian monarchy. Eventually the cloth was transferred to Turin. In 1983, Italy’s exiled king died and left the shroud to the Vatican.
In 1988 the cloth was radiocarbon dated by three independent labs using accelerator mass spectrometry. The resulting age span of circa 1260-1390 was given added credibility by correct dates obtained from a variety of control swatches, including Cleopatra’s mummy wrapping. These findings are mutually supportive. The radiocarbon date is consistent with the time of the reported artist’s confession.
So for people who actually have the ability to think, it's like "DUUUUH!"
The shroud allegedly was in a fire during the early part of the 16th century. So...according to believers in the shroud's authenticity, that is what acounts for the carbon dating of the shroud as being no more than 650 years old. BUT...The notion that contamination could alter the carbon date from the first to the fourteenth century is ludicrous. A simple calculation shows that a weight of modern biological material necessary to raise the shroud date 1300 years would weigh twice as much as the shroud by itself.
Again.....DUH!
Evidence against authenticity includes the image's resemblance to French gothic paintings as well as such obvious flaws as a lack of wraparound distortions. Also, how about the "blood" flows that are picturelike and still bright red? In 1973 the "blood" failed a battery of forensic tests conducted by internationally known experts. Forensic tests of the “blood”, which has remained unbelievably bright red, were consistently negative. In 1980, renowned microanalyst Walter C. McCrone determined that the image was composed of red ocher and vermilion tempera paint. The tempera paint indicates the image is the work of an artist, which in turn is supported by the bishop’s claim that an artist confessed, as well as by the prior lack of historical record.
Overwhelming evidence demonstrates that the so-called shroud is a medieval fake, one which most certainly never held a body. All claims to the contrary reveal little more than the desperate will to believe among shroud advocates.
So I wouldn't exactly point anyone in the direction of this web site.
Quite correct, the shroud is a fake.
The simple fact is that we don't know how Jesus looked for sure.
To try to argue that long hair is okay for Christians because of how Jesus may or may not have had his hair is pointless for that reason.
Question: If Jesus DID have long hair, then are these short haired men in the same wrong they say we are in?
The Rev
Again, it is hard to answer something based on hypothetical conditions. If Jesus did have longish hair, it would seem that the restrictions Paul imposed in Corinthians should be viewed with more latittude. In the first century the average man had much longer hair than most men today so the argument could be made that Paul was just against extreme long hair on men.
Of course, those shorthaired men who say longhaired men are wrong could point to Paul's words are possible proof that Jesus did in fact have shorter hair.
These are very interesting points and arguments. Jesus was a Nazarene, and one of those conditions was that you don't cut your hair. So personally, I believe He had long hair. Of course, I don't think there are any Biblical restrictions on it, God's a God of liberty as it is anyway.
As far as the shroud of Turin, I dunno if I believe it's authenticity or not. Personally, I don't need it to believe what the Bible declares about Jesus, still, it is exciting to think that it could be real. There were many good points contradicting it's authenticity in one of the other posts here, though in studies of my own... what about the pollen of certain plants they've found on the shroud, which is native only to the area of Jerusalem where He was crucified and buried? And radio-carbon dating is not accurate, never has been. That's been proven, too. Also, by looking at the shroud through various microscopes and lighting conditions, they've noticed the "negative image" contains the very bone structure of the body, including the bones of the hands, arms, even the teeth can be seen. Scientists hold that this would require a tremendous burst of radiation. This supports that Jesus was resurrected by the tremendous force of the glory of God entering His body.
Anyway, I'm in the process of growing my own hair out. Can't wait for the end result!
Very interesting comments from everybody.
Yes, the shroud is almost certainly a fake, but the main arguments used to indicate the Jesus had long hair make a lot of sense.
Of course, it doesn't really matter whether he did or not, but IF he did, then that is a good argument to use against the people who interpret Corinthians as meaning that Christian men shouldn't have long hair. How many of these people make the same fuss about women with short hair? Not so consistent then, are they?
My personal view as a Christian is that God offers freedom of choice but the responsibility not to harm others. The length of our hair does no harm to others, except perhaps to the profits of barbers. Case proved.
A *NAZARENE* is a person from Nazareth. There was no restrictions on their cutting their hair ... any more than there were restrictions because a person came from Jerusalem. This is what Jesus was.
A *NAZARITE* could not cut his hair for the period of his oath. There is no indication in scripture that Jesus had taken this oath. In fact, his actions indicate he had not.
If God wanted men to have short hair, then why does it grow? I think long hair is just a matter of choice, and has absolutely nothing to do with God or religion.
Thank you!