Did Jesus have a beard?

[Dogmudgeon]

Poll question: Did Jesus have a beard?

Believe it or not, this has been http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x204396">a topic of deeply nuanced dialog right here at the Religion/Theology/Atheism forum.

So let me ask -- did Our Savio(u)r have a beard? And if so, what kind?

--d!

[doctor jazz]

1. Yeah...a Magdalene

:rofl:

[Ken Burch]

27. You're going to burn in hell for that one...

...but you're right, of course...

[grantcart]

2. I guess since he isn't my Savior I can't answer the question

and I happen to know for a fact exactly what it was


sorry


to late


won't tell you now.

[CJCRANE]

3. Is there any textual reference

to his appearance?

[TechBear_Seattle]

4. ASSUMING that Jesus (or some real-life source for the myths) did, in fact exist...

It is almost certain that he would have had a full beard at least, as that was the custom of the day.

[On the Road]

5. As a Point of Comparison,

his brother James not only had a full set of facial hair, but was a lifelong nazirite and never cut his hair or beard.

I doubt Jesus adopted the short-haired, clean-shaven Roman look.

[DFW]

6. Of course not

His Dad was all-powerful, so he reached 2000 years into the future and gave
his son a Gillette Twin-Track for his 18th birthday.

[nichomachus]

7. Jesus DID have a beard

Her name was Mary Magdalene.

[frebrd]

8. ....

:)

[Warpy]

9. C'mon! Poor folks were always shaggy

until the invention of the cheap straight razor, followed by the safety razor and finally the Bic and all its cousins.

Barbers cost money and only merchants and the aristocrats could afford them.

[Occam Bandage]

10. Jesus disliked the Romans, was a Rabbi and followed the Jewish law, and was poor.

So I'm thinking he had a beard.

[cosmik debris]

11. Why don't you ask HIM?

Go straight to the source.

[Occam Bandage]

12. He has a pretty bad track record when it comes to getting back to people.

I mean, the dude said he'd be right back to fix everything, and that was two thousand years ago. He never answers his voice mail. It's time to admit it: he's just not that into us.

[cosmik debris]

13. Then again,

It could be that he's just not on speaking terms with us after that crucifixion thing.

[Ken Burch]

29. Well, some people just can't EVER let go of a grudge, y'know

(of course, He's lucky Cheney wasn't around back then...)

[Why Syzygy]

14. "fix everything"? And your source is...?

Partial Preterism holds that prophecies such as the destruction of Jerusalem, the Antichrist, the Great Tribulation, and the advent of the Day of the Lord as a "judgment-coming" of Christ were fulfilled c. AD 70 when the Roman general (and future Emperor) Titus sacked Jerusalem and destroyed the Jewish Temple, putting a permanent stop to the daily animal sacrifices. It identifies "Babylon the Great" (Revelation 17-18) with the ancient pagan City of Rome, or even the city of Jerusalem. Some adherents of Partial Preterism see the Emperor Diocletian as the fulfillment of the "little horn" prophecy of Daniel 7. But this is a minority view. The great majority of Partial Preterists believe that Jerusalem was a "great harlot" destroyed by God in A.D. 70. Partial Preterism is also known by several other names: Orthodox Preterism, Historic Preterism, and Moderate Preterism.

Most (but not all) Partial Preterists also believe that the term Last Days refers not to the last days of planet Earth, or the last days of humankind, but rather to the last days of the Mosaic Covenant, which God held exclusively with the nation of Israel until the year AD 70. (see also New Covenant and The Fig Tree). The "Last Days", however, are to be distinguished from the "Last Day", which is considered to still be in the future and entailing the last coming of Jesus, the Resurrection of the righteous and unrighteous dead physically from the grave in like manner to Jesus' physical resurrection, the Final Judgment, and the creation of a literal, non-covenantal New Heaven and New Earth free from the curse of sin and death which was occasioned by the fall of Adam and Eve.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterism

[Occam Bandage]

15. Matthew 16:27-28.

I think it is silly to say that Christ meant "Some Romans will sack Jerusalem" when he said, "For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."

[Why Syzygy]

16. Then you would

belong to the Rapture Ready crowd. A bunch of us don't.
I just picked up Barbara Rossing's book at the library, "The Rapture Exposed".
There are lots of others.
Just letting you know that many many do not agree with you and the RRs.
So, your slam on Jesus failing to show falls short.

[Occam Bandage]

17. Er, what? No, I think it's quite possible to believe quite a few other options.

The first is that Jesus was mistaken, and that rather than making an oblique political prophecy that was fulfilled (the "fulfillment" of which does not meet the terms of the prophecy), he was making a prophecy that did not come true and cannot possibly come true now, since everyone who heard that is long dead without having seen Jesus return in the glory of God accompanied by angels. This is my position: that Christ's claim that he would return within a generation or two has been proven demonstrably false, and as such any sort of belief in an apocalyptic judgment day is nonsense.

The second is that Jesus meant by the "coming of the Kingdom" the founding of the Church along with the New and Everlasting Covenant, and the "coming again" he meant in that particular instance was his Resurrection and Assumption. That I think is a stretch, but is compatible with mainstream Christianity.

The third and most common is to simply ignore that part along with any other inconvenient, contradictory, and/or confusing part of the Bible. We can't all be theologians.

Really, I'm not sure why exactly you came to believe that the only two options available to anyone was to either believe that Christ's prophecies were fulfilled in a manner entirely unrelated to anything he said or predicted, or to believe that Christ was about to come in immediate judgment (and that the Rapture would come before the Millennium, no less).

[Why Syzygy]

18. It is a minority view.

I was steeped in the rapture scenario teaching from the time I was a young teen. Then, some 20 years ago I undertook focused research into the matter for myself. The books/teachings up to that point had indicated 1988 as "the end". The dispensationalists get around the verse where Jesus said, "THIS generation shall not pass away ..." by reaching back to the book of Daniel or Isaiah and inserting here and there in a way to justify their teaching. The preterist view does not do that. A "generation" is understood to be 40 years.

I listened, read and researched further, and came to the conclusion the preterists had it right. So, I've held this view for at least 20 years. These days, there is a much larger group of us, it is still far from mainstream, although there is a lot going on behind the scenes. You will encounter it again sooner or later.

QUESTION: Did Jesus Christ return in AD 70 without fanfare?

ANSWER: I wouldn't exactly call the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 an event “without fanfare.” Josephus mentions some loud voices and trumpet sounds being heard, as well as angelic armies being visible in the sky over Judea at the time of the Jewish revolt (AD 66-70). Jews today still commemorate it in some fashion in almost every joyous occasion they celebrate (the shattered goblet at Jewish weddings, and a special fast day every year in August (Tisha b'Av) are two ways in which they still remember the destruction). Rabbi Davis (from White Plains NY), in his opening remarks of his (1978?) lecture on “Post-Biblical Judaism,” commented that he would begin the study of post-Biblical Judaism with “the end.” Then he said, he would begin with AD 70., because AD 70 was “the end of Biblical Judaism” and the beginning of rabbinic or Talmudic Judaism. Josephus, a Jewish priest and one of the ten Jewish generals who started the war with Rome in 66 A.D., gives his eyewitness account of that gruesome judgment which Jesus said was, “such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever shall.” (Matt. 24:21) A few days later Jesus (at His trial) said the High Priest & the Sanhedrin, “shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.” (Matt. 27:64) Josephus, Tacitus, Eusebius and the Talmud all record the FACT that God’s presence was perceived at that awesome destruction. They even record that angelic armies were seen in the clouds. -Edward E. Stevens

http://www.preterist.org/preteristQA.asp#question7

[Meshuga]

19. Jews remember Tisha b'Av because the Temple was central to Judaism

Some call the fall of the Temple as "the saddest day in Jewish history" so there is a fast on Tisha b'Av in remembrance that more traditional Jews observe. But it has nothing to do with angelical visions during the destruction. That's more of an attempt to connect the dots in order to turn fantasy into reality. The Talmud is full of aggadic tales (which is traditionally taken as fiction) that would make any woo woo happy since they could give the meaning they wish (from fantastic stories about UFO's to crazy fantastic stories like this preterism stuff) to these tales. Especially the Babylonian Talmud where the scholars lived under sassanian rule where zoroastrianism was the dominant religion. So all this language about angels and demons is part of the Babylonian Talmud as the outside culture had a lot of influence in its language and structure. One can see the contrast between the Jerusalem Talmud and the Babylonian Talmud to realize this.

And any historian would agree that 70 CE is the end of priestly Judaism and the beginning of Rabbinical Judaism. But a Jewish Rabbi talking about this historical fact proves what? Especially about prophesies being fulfilled in 70 CE?

[Why Syzygy]

20. In the quoted

text, the pronoun "it" IS referring to the destruction:
Jews today still commemorate it in some fashion in almost every joyous occasion they celebrate (the shattered goblet at Jewish weddings, and a special fast day every year in August (Tisha b'Av) are two ways in which they still remember the destruction)
...which in context refers back to the assertion that there was no "fanfare", or went unnoticed.

Glad you had the opportunity to slip in the emotional phrase, "woo woo".
Is your real objection the fact that you still await the fulfillment of ALL prophecy?

[Meshuga]

21. I'm not waiting for the fulfillment of any prophecy

And the "woo woo" is not emotional in the context that I am using the expression. It is just being used to express how I view these ideas.

[Why Syzygy]

22. "woo woo"

is always an emotional term. It originates in the speaker's limbic system, and its target is the reader's limbic system. No getting around it. Terms like that are not used in rational discussion.

I was curious because I've never seen you refer to any other Christian beliefs as "woo woo", and why this theory set off the emotional rebuttal.

[Meshuga]

24. Out of many other interpretations,

the breaking of the glass can be used as way to remember the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem but it is not meant to be joyful if taken in this context. The breaking of the glass is taken as a reminder that there is sadness even in times of great joy (that life will bring sorrow and joy). In any case, it has nothing to do with fantastic supernatural visions of the destruction of the temple.

The "woo woo" part of it is not because it is a Christian idea. I mean, my own group has its share of people who bring ideas that I view in the same way. But people have the right to believe as they wish to believe.

[Why Syzygy]

30. "fantastic supernatural"

is a reasonable description. That sounds more like what I'm used to reading from you.

I appreciate the additional data. I've come to expect as much from the Information Superhighway.
Thanks.

[IndianaGreen]

23. Jesus was white, had blue eyes, and blond hair and beard.

And he also spoke English with an American accent.

I heard years ago that the model for this well know picture of Jesus was an American GI during WWII. I haven't verified this.

[Occam Bandage]

25. Unlikely, given that it was painted in 1935.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warner_Sallman

:hi:

[IndianaGreen]

26. Looks like it was plagiarized from Léon Lhermitte’s 1892 Supper at Emmaus

http://picturesofjesus4you.com/344.html



https://www.1st-art-gallery.com/L%E3%A9on-Augustin-L'hermitte/Supper-At-Emmaus.html

[Ken Burch]

28. I always thought of that picture as "Jesus of Nebraska"

n/t.

[knitter4democracy]

32. I've never liked that painting.

Always hit me wrong.

[knitter4democracy]

31. That's the rule when writing icons of Him.

Here is a page of several icon styles from several traditions--notice that He pretty much looks the same in all of them--it's because there are rules in the Church on that: http://www.conciliarpress.com/icons/christ-icons?SID=a6907073867106ceaabedd4f7d495b51

[demwing]

33. Goatee. Everyone knows that.

wait, thats Satan.


Nevermind.