To make the statement that an artists rendering is a false Christ is an incoherent leap. No one worships paintings. They are only imaginitive and depictive renditions of what the artist can best portray according to his study of the subject.And to depict Christ with long hair is an accurate portrayal, regardless of your preconceived notions.
I'm replying to this as it keeps coming up. To start with I would like to point out that the apostle Paul actually saw Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 9:1). Paul wrote a large part of the New Testament, knew exactly what The Lord looked like. In 1 Corinthians 11:14, Paul wrote, "if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him." It's Would Paul have made such a statement if Jesus Christ had long hair? How could anything about The Lord be called disgraceful?
In almost all of the portraits I have seen Christ almost always appears as either a hippie, a sickly looking pasty weakling, perhaps feminine or worse. He always has long hair, is tall and thin, looks nothing like a Jew and has a "won"t you please worship me, pretty please or I"ll just die" look. None of this is anywhere near the truth. As I have always known, if you rely on everyone"s or anyone"s opinions or "I thinks" instead of scripture you"re sure to come out wrong every time. We might as well ask why do we need the Bible anyway?
People love to have an image to worship. When Moses fashioned the bronze serpent as instructed, people could not wait to bow down to it. Moses bones had to be well hidden so people would not dig them up to worship his decayed body and for similar reasons this is why we don"t have a real idea of what Christ looked like. So we decided to make one up anyway didn"t we?
But one thing is for sure and that is that He did not look like our modern depictions. From all that I can gather from scripture, the things described about Him, the things He said, His heritage, the people He liked, the people He hung around with, images of people from that generation we would be mightily surprised as to how He looked in the flesh. For one thing it is written, "But the priests, the Levites "shall neither shave their heads nor let their hair grow long; but they shall keep their hair well trimmed." Christ was a High Priest. And Paul said, "Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him?" Christ was not a lawbreaker or a shame and did not have long hair.
Christ was not tall, thin and pasty looking. He was a Jew and so looked like the other Jews that He could not be picked out in a crowd. This is why Judas had to betray Him with a kiss just so others could know "now which one is Jesus?" Jews are usually shorter than certain races like whites or blacks, have a medium amount of melanin attributing their darkish skin.
Christ was not as weak looking as pictures seem to depict. I doubt He was a body builder, but for the amount of walking He did, fasting and rugged lifestyle of the times He was physically fit and physically strong. He associated with rebels, sword wielding rebels like Peter who was ready to kill at a moments notice and men called "Sons of Thunder" like the Zebedee brothers, men of action who said things like, "Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" In other words, when do we take over, rise up and take back Palestine? So I doubt Christ was the sissy hanging around tough men. Christ waged strong words against the teachers of the time. His look, His eye contact, His words were probably full of authority and not wimpy or whiney
He was the God of the Old Testament who made and loved David the king and warrior and the tough men who hung around David. It is also not known that many of the Old Testament prophets were strong and forceful men, a testament to Him. And finally upon Christ"s return we see Him waging war. So a pallid, sissy and somebody help me expression are closer to the exact opposite of the man Christ.
If I had to guess who is actually depicted in these portraits , who fertilized the imaginations of men from which came the drawings, I would guess that it is Satan. Lucifer means, "light bearer" and in other places Satan is described as once being, ""Full of wisdom and perfect in beauty"" On the other hand of what beings may look like, we have Satan in a red body stocking along with pitchfork. This too is also positively wrong as scripture is describing a beautiful being.
In the movies it is all too easy to pick out the big bad ugly sinister character. Satan is not so stupid to appear that way. Scripture says Satan appears as, ""an angel of light"" and his ministers as, "ministers of righteousness...."
As usual the world has it wrong.
__________________ And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.
Second
"You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I The Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate Me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love Me and keep My Commandments."
__________________
Jesus said, "he who stands firm to the end will be saved" Mark 13:13.
Live Life in such a way that those who do not know Christ will come to know Him because they know you
Leaf River Mac there is a verse (sorry I can't remember which book right at the moment) in which the saviour is being described. It says there will be nothing becoming to the eye about the personage of the savour. I have heard folks say that the very about Jesus having hair like a lamb (rev. something the best I can remember) suggests that Jesus had very curly hair that laid close on his head.
Hope this helps.
Thanks
Mr-Pirk
__________________
A proud owner of a Flying Vee. Bestowed by the fine Gentleman VC1111 himself.
The apostle Paul (see On The Road To Damascus) actually saw Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 9:1). Paul, a trustworthy man who wrote a large part of the New Testament, knew exactly what The Lord looked like. In 1 Corinthians 11:14, Paul wrote, "if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him." It's quite unthinkable that Paul would have made such a statement if Jesus Christ had long hair. How could anything about The Lord be called disgraceful?
Throughout the Gospel books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, people made no mention of something different about how He looked. If anything, people wondered how such an ordinary-looking man could be The Savior. John The Baptist would not have known that his cousin was The Savior (their mothers, Mary and Elizabeth were related) unless an angel had told him just before Jesus' baptism at age 30 (John 1:33). The mob that came to arrest Him The Fateful Night could not tell Him apart from Peter or John or any of the others - Judas Iscariot had to actually point Him out (Matthew 26:47-49) (see Why Did He Do It?), and even then Jesus had to identify Himself, twice, to those who demanded Him by Name as He stood right in front of them in the bright light of their torches (John 18:3-9).
__________________
Jesus said, "he who stands firm to the end will be saved" Mark 13:13.
Live Life in such a way that those who do not know Christ will come to know Him because they know you
Leaf, once again you missed ,entirely, the point. You made a statement that a painting of Christ would present a false Christ. For heaven's sake--they are only attempts at guessing what He may or may not have looked like, based on the average Jewish man of the day in Jerusalem--who just so happened to have had hair to or below the shoulders and parted it in the middle. No one knows what He actually looked like specifically. It is not creating a graven image to have a speculative image of Him.If someone to claims to have a vision or actually bows in front of one of these portraits--well then that would constitute a graven image.To have a false portrayal of Him doctrinally is an important matter, worthy of defending.
Leaf, once again you missed ,entirely, the point. You made a statement that a painting of Christ would present a false Christ. For heaven's sake--they are only attempts at guessing what He may or may not have looked like, based on the average Jewish man of the day in Jerusalem--who just so happened to have had hair to or below the shoulders and parted it in the middle. No one knows what He actually looked like specifically. It is not creating a graven image to have a speculative image of Him.If someone to claims to have a vision or actually bows in front of one of these portraits--well then that would constitute a graven image.To have a false portrayal of Him doctrinally is an important matter, worthy of defending.
Bro.Man, what's your belief on this verse?
The apostle Paul (see On The Road To Damascus) actually saw Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 9:1). Paul, a trustworthy man who wrote a large part of the New Testament, knew exactly what The Lord looked like. In 1 Corinthians 11:14, Paul wrote, "if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him." It's quite unthinkable that Paul would have made such a statement if Jesus Christ had long hair. How could anything about The Lord be called disgraceful?
__________________
Jesus said, "he who stands firm to the end will be saved" Mark 13:13.
Live Life in such a way that those who do not know Christ will come to know Him because they know you
I accept just what Paul is saying, with the background of the cultural meaning, in context of the day and in relation to verse 16---If anyone wants to be contentious about this we have no other practice--nor do the churches of God.That is precisely my point---to add to what is being said, or to take liberties, to attempt to make something neatly fit into a preconceived notion is an unsound practice in hermeneutics. Context is crucial if one wants to really study to show one self approved. The relevance is to the effeminate attempts of some men that would deliberately want to convey feminine traits, the going against of nature.There is no indication of what is considered long, other than in comparison to a woman's appearance--being feminine is what is being emphasised and as I said before, manliness and womanhood go beyond styles of hair, and the deliberate attempts by either to appear as the opposite is Paul's emphasis. Verse 16 makes that abundantly clear, as well as the context and every other reference throughout Scripture concerning effeminate behavior.That is my understanding, and I do not consider this worthy of becoming an issue that warrants being insulted for not agreeing with counter viewpoints--and neither does Paul, as he states very plainly.
Btw, I had a shaved head for several years, and my wife really thought it made me appear masculine. But, the culture has given this particular look over to the homsexual community, and it is also associated with biker types and characters such as seen in the wrestling world--none of which I want to be characterized as. A perfect example of my point--I nowhave very short hair, and I am very conscious of maintaining a masculine appearance. There is no one set way to achieve this, especially in keeping with the changes culture undertakes.A sensitivity to these issues is crucial in maintaining a relevant and consistent testimony.
Response To Pic Of Christ
