There's a world of difference between hair like this:
and hair like this:
Point being, just because he didn't have a modern Western crew cut, by the cultural standards of the day, Jesus did not have "long hair."
Posted on 04/17/2016 6:27:48 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
“Long” hair at the time, would be considered by Paul as down her back to her knees kind of long. NOT shaggy, shoulder length, as the shroud shows. Hair dressing was(is) expensive, and not something done well by the very poor.
I hope you are trying to be funny.
Otherwise, hat is insanity. In context, he was referring to a woman’s length hair.
Samson had long hair because he was a Nazarite, and it was braided up. As was Absalom’s. It got him killed.
There's a world of difference between hair like this:
and hair like this:
Point being, just because he didn't have a modern Western crew cut, by the cultural standards of the day, Jesus did not have "long hair."
That looks like Kenny Loggins.
Do you really, honestly, believe that man has ever in world history worn hair like that?
I mean, should there not be some examples of that in a painting, carving, etc.
How would a man work with hair like that?
Rome was in control of the world at that time. Rome set the cultural standards. The Romans wore their hair very short. Have you ever seen a Roman emperor represented with long hair.
I Cor 11:13 —
13 Judge for yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God uncovered? 14 Does even nature itself not teach you that if a man has long hair it is a shame to him? 15 But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her, for her hair is given her for a covering. 16 But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor have the churches of God.
The long hair Paul was talking about was the long hair on a woman.
The outline of the hair on the shroud is much longer than what you have depicted.
It is not just the Cathedral in Turin. The Shroud itself is considered the personal property of the current Pope, who ever that may be. . . and the Pope has to sign off on any thing done to or on it. The Last three popes have only allowed the ill-advised "restoration" of the Shroud in 2002, which did far more damage to the cloth than any preservation. The restoration probably also did more damage to the DNA that is present.
All the blood and sera that has been examined so far has shown very damaged DNA with broken, fragmented strands.
The status of DNA studies from the FAQ on Shroud.com says:
Q: Has DNA testing ever been performed on the Shroud, assuming the blood stains still have traces of DNA?A: Several years ago, some Texas researchers did a DNA study of supposed Shroud bloodstains, but the provenance of the samples they used was questionable and their results have not been officially recognized. Nonetheless, their findings concluded that the blood on the Shroud is from a male human. They also stated that the blood is so old and degraded that very few DNA segments were found, eliminating any possibility of "cloning" anything from the blood found on the cloth. Other DNA experts argue however, that so much contamination exists on the Shroud that no DNA test, no matter how carefully done, could ever be considered definitive. During the 1978 exhibition and scientific examination, the cloth was handled by many people, including most members of STURP, the Church authorities who prepared it for display, the Poor Clare nuns who unstitched portions of it, visiting dignitaries (including the Archbishop of Turin and the emissary of King Umberto) and countless others. During the five days and nights of the 1978 examination, the Shroud was continuously exposed to contamination as it lay unprotected on the support table. Every member of our research team, including myself, left DNA on the cloth. And remember, the cloth has been displayed and handled thousands of times throughout its history. Once again, the Shroud presents us with an enigma that even DNA evidence may not definitively unravel.
On the other hand, DNA evidence does little if anything to help determine the mechanism that formed the image on the cloth. I am not sure that it has much other value, except perhaps, to satisfy someone's curiosity. I personally see little merit in pursuing it and expect the Church will not allow any formal DNA testing in the forseeable future anyway. The authorities have already officially stated that any future research efforts will concentrate exclusively on the preservation and conservation of the Shroud.
You again assume too much.
Rome may have been the rulers of the outlying provinces, but that did not mean they were setting the styles, especially hairstyles like such are set today is not what happened in the ancient world. Local religion had a lot more to do with it than the mores of someone a thousand miles away. Romans were still a minority in the area and the people, especially the Jews, would NOT be likely to adopt their styles.
For example, Romans were almost invariably clean shaven. . . were the Jewish men going to shave their beards? I sincerely doubt it. Yet early iconography of Jesus showed him as a clean shaven man carrying a sheep, yet there is no evidence Jesus was ever a shepherd.
Looking at Roman customs doesn't tell us much. If you bother reading (even for example, Daniel, or Maccabees) you find that the Jews tended to get in trouble by resisting the cultural norms of whoever was occupying Israel at the time.
On the other hand, the image on the Shroud, after algorithmically removing the cloth artifacting, was recognized as human, the equivalent of a photograph, and was ready to be compared, but since the exemplar from the Manoppello Veronica was not usable, the software aborted.
"I have sent the image of the face from the Shroud and the image of Manoppello to Mr. Kinn, a criminal inspector and expert at LKA Mainz/Germany (German State Police). I had asked him about the possibility of using biometry to compare the Shroud face and the Manoppello face. In the case of the Manoppello he said that the computer would throw this out as a painting. In the case of the Turin face the computer would recognize it as a real face, if the pattern of the cloth were removed by algorithmical mathematics. Then the face recognition software would be able to make a biometrical scan. With the face of Manopello it is not possible, because the software would identify this not as a photo of a face but as an artwork. And there are too many anatomical mistakes on the face of Manoppello, whereas the Shroud of Turin face is anatomically correct. With your research into the Shroud of Turin, could you also bring light to the Manoppello image? This would be a great help."
1. Josephus shows that the Jews were known, as Eusebius renders it, for “their close-cropped hair” (Preparation for the Gospel, IX.9, sect 412b).
2. Leviticus 10:6 —
Moses said to Aaron, and to Eleazar and Ithamar his sons, “Do not let your hair be loosely disheveled,
3. Ezek. 44:20 —
Nor shall they shave their heads, nor suffer their locks to grow long. They shall only trim the hair of their heads.
1. Josephus shows that the Jews were known, as Eusebius renders it, for “their close-cropped hair” (Preparation for the Gospel, IX.9, sect 412b).
2. Leviticus 10:6 —
Moses said to Aaron, and to Eleazar and Ithamar his sons, “Do not let your hair be loosely disheveled,
3. Ezek. 44:20 —
Nor shall they shave their heads, nor suffer their locks to grow long. They shall only trim the hair of their heads.
You're quoting a survey work written in the 300s? Mmmmmkay. 2. Leviticus 10:6 — Moses said to Aaron, and to Eleazar and Ithamar his sons, “Do not let your hair be loosely disheveled,
This was topical, and was a reaction to the episode of Nadab taking it upon themselves to offer burnt incense. The full quote is :
1Now Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took their respective firepans, and after putting fire in them, placed incense on it and offered strange fire before the LORD, which He had not commanded them. 2And fire came out from the presence of the LORD and consumed them, and they died before the LORD. 3Then Moses said to Aaron, "It is what the LORD spoke, saying, 'By those who come near Me I will be treated as holy, And before all the people I will be honored.'" So Aaron, therefore, kept silent.4Moses called also to Mishael and Elzaphan, the sons of Aaron's uncle Uzziel, and said to them, "Come forward, carry your relatives away from the front of the sanctuary to the outside of the camp." 6Then Moses said to Aaron and to his sons Eleazar and Ithamar, "Do not uncover your heads nor tear your clothes, so that you will not die and that He will not become wrathful against all the congregation. But your kinsmen, the whole house of Israel, shall bewail the burning which the LORD has brought about.
Note the following:
a) as noted before this is TOPICAL, not a general command.
b) other translations say "uncover" as opposed to "unkempt".
Ergo, you are WRONG.
3. Ezek. 44:20 — Nor shall they shave their heads, nor suffer their locks to grow long. They shall only trim the hair of their heads.
Again, this is topical. The full quote is
15“ ‘But the Levitical priests, who are descendants of Zadok and who guarded my sanctuary when the Israelites went astray from me, are to come near to minister before me; they are to stand before me to offer sacrifices of fat and blood, declares the Sovereign Lord. 16They alone are to enter my sanctuary; they alone are to come near my table to minister before me and serve me as guards. 17“ ‘When they enter the gates of the inner court, they are to wear linen clothes; they must not wear any woolen garment while ministering at the gates of the inner court or inside the temple. 18They are to wear linen turbans on their heads and linen undergarments around their waists. They must not wear anything that makes them perspire. 19When they go out into the outer court where the people are, they are to take off the clothes they have been ministering in and are to leave them in the sacred rooms, and put on other clothes, so that the people are not consecrated through contact with their garments. 20“ ‘They must not shave their heads or let their hair grow long, but they are to keep the hair of their heads trimmed. 21No priest is to drink wine when he enters the inner court. 22They must not marry widows or divorced women; they may marry only virgins of Israelite descent or widows of priests.
Note again:
a) this refers to the descendants of Zadok (Levites, whereas Jesus was tribe of Judah)
b) did Jesus wear a turban on his head? Did he wear linen undergarments? (His tunic was of one piece, so that the Scripture might be fulfilled, for my garments they cast lots).
c) Jesus drank wine - Heavens, he turned water INTO wine,and liked to hang around with winebibbers and sinners, and drank wine at the Last Supper.
d) Last I heard, Jesus never got married, neither.
Ergo, you are WRONG.
I conclude that you are a dishonest TROLL.
“I conclude that you are a dishonest TROLL.”
And I conclude you are a POS. Screw off. I never dreamed anyone could latch on to something like this.
I am done with this nonsense.
See also NYer's thread on that article:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3420011/posts.
It sounds to me like rigor mortis requires the breaking down of tissue or decomposition. It appears that according to the evidence per the shroud Jesus’ body was still in rigor mortis when He rose from the dead. It is very interesting to me that in a normal body in three days rigor mortis would likely be gone due to the normal processes of decomposition. Remember Lazerus who they said that in four days he would already be smelling very badly. Well I think that this phenomenon of Jesus still being in the state of rigor mortis shows that even in death His body did not go through the normal decay process. Amazingly the fact that he was still in rigor mortis verifies again that this man on this cloth was/is The Christ of The Bible. I believe that this is very Scriptural per these verses:
Psa 16:10 For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
Act 2:27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
Act 2:31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.