Did Jesus / Yeshoshua look like a woman or a man? (tradition, translation)

[t3gah]

This is a big one. Thousands and millions of people have busts, photographs, and paintings showing Jesus with long hair.

I was taught by the WTB&TS that this is impossible.

I asked for scriptural proof since JW elders use the scriptures when they are answering questions.

They brought up a scripture that states that men shouldn't dress like women and vice versa.

What about the hair though?

What about Galileans?

I say he had long hair and so did the rest of the people back then. Why? Because God made hair to grow and grow with humans. Dogs and cats have hair that grows to a certain length. Beards are long hair.

[Scuba Pete]

Well, I don't think he wore a bra. I don't have any scriptures to back that up, but I would stake my reputation that he didn't wear one.

[oracle]

One thing you have to consider is that Jesus was more than likely a wanderer, not homeless because he had a home, but he would often wander as he preached. I would assume that on many occasions he wasn't well dressed and well groomed as much as portrayed, had a little bit of a tan, and black hair. He probably had long hair, and it might have been traditionally tied back.

[No*s]

Originally Posted by t3gah

This is a big one. Thousands and millions of people have busts, photographs, and paintings showing Jesus with long hair.

I was taught by the WTB&TS that this is impossible.

I asked for scriptural proof since JW elders use the scriptures when they are answering questions.

They brought up a scripture that states that men shouldn't dress like women and vice versa.

What about the hair though?

What about Galileans?

I say he had long hair and so did the rest of the people back then. Why? Because God made hair to grow and grow with humans. Dogs and cats have hair that grows to a certain length. Beards are long hair.

I have a feeling that's one of those sad traditions of mistranslation from the KJV, which maintains itself today. Paul wrote, in I Corinthians 11.14. St. Paul said no such thing. In Greek it goes:

(transliterated): oude i fisis avti didaski imas oti anir men ean koma atimia avto estin.
(transcribed): oude he phusis auth didakei humas didaskei hoti men ean koma atimia auto estin.

It says (translated literally) And doesn't nature herself teach us that a man with koma is shameful?

Making it less literal, we can get something that sounds standard: "And doesn't nature herself teach us that it is a shame for a man to have koma."

"Koma," though, does not mean long hair. It means groomed and carefully tended hair. This stands in contrast to the Greek word "thrix," which means just plain "hair." In order for either one to have "long," the adjective "makros" must be supplied in its feminine form. Neither word contains long hair as essential to its definition.

So, all we have is that men shouldn't be dawdling around carefully tending their hair, because in Paul's family structure, the man has other business he must attend to. I think this translation makes more sense than the other. As a result, this verse says nothing about Christ's length of hair, and it's the only Scripture that someone may really use to say He didn't have long hair...even in the most remote way (Paul didn't have Christ in mind at all).

The translation here is a traditional mistranslation, and well, the JWs wouldn't be the first group to misinterpret and misapply this passage on account of it, nor will they be the last.

[michel]

hi t3gah;

I may be missing a big point somewhere; does it matter whether Jesus was a man or a woman?

[No*s]

I believe he's more driving at whether Christ was a man that looked/dressed femininish by a standard his former group laid down.

[SoulTYPE]

Originally Posted by NetDoc

Well, I don't think he wore a bra. I don't have any scriptures to back that up, but I would stake my reputation that he didn't wear one.

He probably burnt it in the late 60's

But once again t3gah, it all comes down to the believer and what THEIR mage of Jesus was.

Also IM OWN opinion, was Jesus not the SON of God? Not many males of that continent look like females.

[michel]

Originally Posted by No*s

I believe he's more driving at whether Christ was a man that looked/dressed femininish by a standard his former group laid down.

O.K, does that make any difference? - I'm not being argumentative; I can't see how the importance of looks, dress, hair length matters.
After all, you don't judge a book by it's cover.

[No*s]

Originally Posted by michel

O.K, does that make any difference? - I'm not being argumentative; I can't see how the importance of looks, dress, hair length matters.
After all, you don't judge a book by it's cover.

Christianity traditionally has a division of roles. Men have a position, and women have a position (it was forged in a male-dominated society), and we shouldn't cross those boundries. Men aren't supposed to act like women, nor women like men, and they shouldn't dress like each other. Of course, the guidelines on this change from society to society.

As a result, many people feel challenged by a depiction of Christ with long hair, and this crosses group lines. It's a result of a combination of the verse mistranslation and societal pressure. For instance, I was raised that it wasn't right for a man to have long hair, and my family was about is irreligious as you get. They had a cow when they saw my beard as well. Now, when you add in religious pressure to this, it gets quite pressing.

While I have no problem with long hair (it's actually quite traditional for Orthodoxy for priests and monks to have such), I would be quite impious to wear a dress.

I hope that clears things up.

[oracle]

Originally Posted by No*s

So, all we have is that men shouldn't be dawdling around carefully tending their hair, because in Paul's family structure, the man has other business he must attend to. I think this translation makes more sense than the other. As a result, this verse says nothing about Christ's length of hair, and it's the only Scripture that someone may really use to say He didn't have long hair...even in the most remote way (Paul didn't have Christ in mind at all).

Makes sense to me