Is the article speaking of Greek or Aramaic?

Why the depiction of Christ with long hair?

Hi Vic,

You claim that Martin Luther and John Calvin believed the Scripture was only referring to Jesus' brothers and sisters as "kinsmen."   That may or may not be true.  If so, it is not the only issue where I would disagree with these two.  Yet, I would agree with both on my issues.

I know that Martin Luther did not necessarily want to leave the Roman Catholic church; but, only to change some of their teachings.  One was that Luther had found that Scripture teaches that we are saved by grace through faith -- alone.  This was part of his 95 Theses.

And, John Calvin and I disagree strongly on his teaching of predestination.  But, yet we agree that a true believer cannot lose his/her salvation.

But, let's go back about 1500 years earlier, to the writings of Matthew and Mark -- those who walked with Jesus Christ or who had close association with those who walked with Him.

Matthew 13:55-56, "Is not this the carpenter's son?  Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?   And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this man get all these things?"

Mark 6:3, "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon?  Are not His sisters here with us?" And they took offense at Him."

Mark 10:29 Jesus said, "Truly I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or farms, for My sake and for the Gospel's sake."

There can be no doubt that these were the blood relatives if Jesus Christ, children of Joseph and Mary.   At many other places where the writers meant "Christian brothers and sisters" -- they used the word "brethren."  

Hebrews 2:17, "Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things,. . ."

Acts 1:15, "At this time Peter stood up in the midst of the brethren (a gathering of about one hundred and twenty persons was there together), . . ."

Acts 6:3, "Therefore, brethren, select from among you seven men of good re****tion. . ."

1 Corinthians 15:1, "Now I make known to you, brethren, the Gospel which I preached to you,. . ."

1 Corinthians 16:20, "All the brethren greet you. . . "

James 1:2, "Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials."

James 1:16, "Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren. . . "

James 1:19, "This you know, my beloved brethren. . . "

Vic, nowhere in Scripture does it support the teaching that Mary had an "immaculate birth" -- or that Mary was "sinless" -- or that Mary was "raptured, i.e., the assumption" -- or that Mary "remained a virgin."  None of these are found in the Bible.  Some mention may be found in the Apocrypha -- but, not in the Bible.

Vic, I am not trying to be disagreeable, but, when you post articles or statements on the forum which I know are not Biblical -- and you imply that they are Biblical -- I must refute your claim.

But, I will have to agree with the last paragraph in your post:

The question of whether Mary and Joseph had sexual relations and the implications of that question are complex, and it lead us to consider the dogma of the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin.  What does the dogma mean and why does it matter?

I will have to ask the same question:  What does it matter if Mary had other children after she gave birth to Jesus Christ?

Mary was chosen as a virgin and kept as a virgin to fulfill Scripture:

Isaiah 7:14, "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel."

Isaiah 9:6, "For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace."

Mary had to remain a virgin until after the birth of Jesus Christ -- for He is the spotless Lamb, the Son to be born to us from God.  After His birth, there was no reason Mary and Joseph could not have resumed a normal married life.  And, there is nothing in the Bible to indicate that they did not.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

We have no idea how Jesus wore His hair -- long, short, or buzz cut.  All we have are artists' imaginations played out in their paintings.   We could assume that He had somewhat long hair and facial hair; for that was common in that culture.   But, the only ones we know for sure who had long hair were the Nazarites -- who had taken a vow of separation for God. 

The Nazarites that we know for sure are Samson (Judges 13), Samuel (1 Samuel 1), and John the Baptist.  And, very likely Jesus could be viewed as a Nazarite; for He was most certainly set aside by God.  But, being a Nazarene (living in Nazareth) and being a Nazarite are two totally different things.  And, some suggest the apostle Paul was a Nazarite.  

So, based upon the things we know -- artists have come up with their own renditions of the appearance of Jesus Christ.  But, God is His perfect wisdom did not leave us any descriptions or drawings of Jesus Christ for a very good reason. 

If we had an actual picture, drawing, or painting of Jesus Christ -- how many would be worshiping the painting, how many would have the painting on an altar, how many would be praying to the painting -- instead of praying to Jesus Christ Himself.  This is why God told us in Exodus 20:4, in the Second Commandment, "You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth."

This is also why the Roman Catholic Ten Commandments is different from the Biblical Ten Commandments.  They could not have all their statues and idols and still honor the original Ten Commandments.  To fix this problem, the Roman Catholic church removed the Second Commandment regarding idols.

However, this presented a problem for them.  There has to be Ten Commandments -- not Nine Commandments.  So, to fix that problem, they split the Tenth Commandment and made it in two separate commandments.

In the Biblical Ten Commandments, found in Exodus 20, we are told:

1.  I am the Lord, your God.
2.  Thou shall bring no false idols before me.
3.  Do not take the name of the Lord in vain.
4.  Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy.
5.  Honor thy father and thy mother.
6.  Thou shall not kill/murder.
7.  Thou shall not commit adultery.
8.  Thou shall not steal.
9.  Thou shall not bear false witness against your neighbor
10.  Thou shall not covet‡ your neighbor's wife (or anything that belongs to your neighbor).

But, the Roman Catholic Ten Commandments reads:

1. I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me.
2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
3. Remember thou keep the Sabbath Day.
4. Honor thy Father and thy Mother.
5. Thou shalt not kill.
6. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
7. Thou shalt not steal.
8. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
9. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods.

A wee bit of "sleight of hand" -- and viola! there are Ten Commandments again!   The only problem is that they are not the Original Ten Commandments.

So, back to your original question -- we have no idea how Jesus Christ looked or how He wore His hair.   Yet, I still love this artist rendition, for I like to imagine that is how He will look with I get to heaven.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

At an early age Mary, in prayer, expressed to the Father, she didn't know man

and she said she never wanted to know man. She wasn't happy about being

pushed into a marriage and when straight into prayer to the Father about it.

So the more that was reveiled to her the more willing she was to accept it.

Why was Joseph chosen? He was old enough to be her Dad. The thing

about Joseph was, he didn't want and he wasn't looking for a wife.

Same again as Mary, his family was pushing him. He was comtent right

were he was with his life.

Mary had an older sister, she had children, Jesus had cousins, and second

cousins.

Don't try to load this Holy Family on the same bus as your family.

You're missing the point that this is God. And the Father laid out a special

way he wanted it to happen. There were several things out of the ordinary

that doesn't happen with us. Being God, and being that it's his son, he

took liberty for himself personally.

Much of what happened was told to us in later writings that anyone can

read if so wanted. If you think that couldn't be possible, St. John thinks

so and he said so. More has been written for our benefit just because

we want to know about what happened, Jesus wants to share new

knowledge or he wouldn't have let all that information be known.

It's like looking between the pages of the Bible and beyond, it doesn't

change anything of the Bible, it's just more human interest. And it does

answer many questions that aren't in the Bible. I believe that's the main

reason Jesus wanted verious books written. Like John said, everything

isn't in the Bible. So if the Bible is all you got, then that's all you need

but it's all you're going to know.

Her womb, the place the Word was made Flesh, was never going to be

contaminated with an ordinary act of procreation.

Mary had a husband for the eyes of the world, but her person, her

life, her womb had already been spoken for, and it wasn't for everyday.

I don't believe you can grasp that, but it's the perfection in details that

God sees over in all things.

I know you can't understand all this and I'm getting tired and it's all

for nothing anyway, so

Reminds me of a joke, but I'll resist.

Hi Vic,

Please show us where you find this in the Bible.   I find nothing in the Bible about Mary wanting to be a "perpetual virgin" nor about the age of Joseph.  I have always been taught that when the Bible is silent, we should be silent.  Oh, we can speculate -- but, when doing this we should identify it as pure speculation.  Which you have not.  So, I must assume that you found all this wealth of knowledge in the Bible.

I have always felt very comfortable inviting everyone to Bible study, Protestants, Roman Catholics, non-believers, world religions, etc.   Why?  Because, for any question that is raised -- the first answer must always be, "What does the Bible say about this?"   And, then we discuss from there.

If it is something critical to our faith, our salvation, our Christian walk -- God has put it in the Bible.  If it is not there, we have to assume He does not consider it that important.  Therefore, since He did put into the Bible that Jesus had brothers and sisters -- and He even named the brothers; we must assume He wanted us to know this.  Since He did NOT put tell us in the Bible that Mary was raptured (assumed) we must presume that this did not happen.  

And, since He did not tell us in the Bible the age of Joseph -- how do YOU know he was old enough to be Mary's father?

Vic, do you see how simple and clean our faith is when we turn only to the Bible for answers?

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

No disrespect Vic but why does it matter? Our salvation is based on Jesus intercessory work not Mary. If she remained a virgin so be it. My reading of scripture casts doubt on this assertion but its certainly possible. But what difference does it make? Mary can't save you, me Bill or anybody. Jesus said all power is given to me. That pretty much leaves Mary out.

Ask a Bible Teacher

How Old Was Joseph?

Bill:

1. Is the Bible the inspired word of God?

2. Paul said he saw Christ on the road to Damascus. Did he lie?

3. If Paul saw Christ, and Christ had long hair, why would Paul say it was a shame for a man to wear long hair?

BTW, Christ was not traditionally portrayed with long hair until the Renaissance.

It is very likely that Mary was a teenager; but, the Bible tells us nothing about her except that she was a young virgin who was betrothed to Joseph.  In the Jewish culture of that day, most likely she would have been betrothed as a teenager.  But, that is assumption based upon cultural knowledge, not based upon anything told us in the Bible.  Yet, I accept that Mary was a teen virgin.

All we know about Joseph is that he was an honest carpenter and had established himself in this business.  This could have happened while he was a teen, or in his twenties, or maybe thirties.  Again, the Bible tells us nothing about Joseph's age nor about his death.  So, saying he was much older than Mary is pure speculation.  We do not know.  And, we have no way of knowing.

We do know that Jesus took over Joseph's carpentry business after his death.  And, we know that He took over the business before He was thirty -- for, at thirty, He began His earthly ministry.   Most likely, Jesus was the carpenter for that area while He was in his young or mid twenties.

The Jewish tradition of that day was that a man pay a dowry to the girl's family.  Then, in their culture their betrothal was announced, which to them was a sacred commitment.  The bridegroom then went off to prepare a home for his new bride-to-be.  This may take months, or could take years.   When this was accomplished, at a time neither the bride, nor anyone else knew -- the bride-groom would come for his bride and they would be married.  This is much like the Rapture which is described in John 14:1-3.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

You ask, "Is the Bible the inspired Word of God?"

The Bible tells us:

2  Timothy 3:16-17, "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work."

You ask, "Paul said he saw Christ on the road to Damascus.   Did he lie?"

I am not sure why you are asking if Paul lied, but the Bible tells us:

Acts 9:3-7, "As he (Saul/Paul) was traveling, it happened that he was approaching Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him; and he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?"  And he said, "Who are You, Lord?" And He said, "I am Jesus  whom you are persecuting, but get up and enter the city, and it will be told you what you must do."  The men who traveled with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one."

And, the change brought about in Saul/Paul's lift after this encounter with Jesus Christ can leave little doubt that he truly did see Jesus on the road to Damascus -- and it turned him from being a persecutor of Christians -- into being a Christian himself.  His volume of teaching and writings leave little doubt that he spoke the Word of God which was given to him by the Holy Spirit.

Finally, you ask, "If Paul saw Christ, and Christ had long hair, why would Paul say it was a shame for a man to wear long hair?"

First, we do not know what the length of Jesus' hair was at that time.  All we have are artists' renditions.   The Bible does not tell us; so, we cannot say for sure.  True, the culture in that day for men was relatively long hair and possibly a beard -- but, only Nazarites were forbidden to cut their hair or beard.  So, we do not know about the length of Jesus' hair.

Firenze, I suppose that to give you a good answer, it might be better to point you toward the answer I found at the web sit GotQuestions.Org:   http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-long-hair.html

Question: "Did Jesus have long hair?"

Answer:  Most artistic portrayals of Jesus are of a Caucasian male with blue eyes and long light-brown hair.  It is important to understand that this common portrayal is likely not at all what Jesus looked like.  Jesus was ethnically Jewish, so He likely had light to dark brown skin, brown eyes, and dark brown or black hair.  Jesus would have looked like a typical middle easterner.  The Bible nowhere gives a physical description of Jesus, so no one should be dogmatic about His appearance.  And, ultimately, we have to realize that what He looked like does not matter.  If it mattered, the Bible would contain a physical description.

If the colors of His skin, eyes, and hair in artistic portrayals are likely inaccurate, what about the length of His hair?  Is Jesus being portrayed as having long hair also inaccurate?  Again, it is impossible to be dogmatic, since the Bible says nothing about the length of His hair.  But, if Jesus looked like a typical Middle Eastern male in the 1st century A.D., the artistic portrayals are likely incorrect on the length of His hair as well.  Many of the artistic portrayals of Jesus show Him with hair that looks somewhat feminine.  That would not have been the case.  While there were no specific Jewish laws, Jewish men traditionally kept much shorter hair than Jewish women.

There is also Paul’s comment in 1 Corinthians 11:14 that, “Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him?”  The length of Jesus’ hair would have been whatever was culturally appropriate for a man.  Jesus’ hair would have looked masculine.  Now, what that precisely means is subject to debate.  Could His hair have been shoulder length? Possibly.  Would Jesus have had a buzz cut or otherwise very short hair?  Probably not.  The key is that it would have been masculine looking.  And that seems to be Paul’s point in 1 Corinthians 11:3-15.  A man’s hair should look masculine.  A woman’s hair should look feminine.  What this means can differ from culture to culture, but the principle remains regardless of culture.

So, did Jesus have long hair?  The answer depends on what is meant by “long.”  Could it have been longer than the typical hair length of men today?  Yes.  Would it have been so long that it appeared feminine?  No.  But, just as with the colors of His skin, eyes, and hair, the length of His hair ultimately does not matter.  It is completely irrelevant to Him being the Savior of the world (John 1:29) and the only way to heaven (John 14:6).

Firenze, I pray that I have answered your questions sufficiently.  If not, let's talk more.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

RB,,,,,,,,,,No it doesn't matter, and all power is given To Jesus, But there

are facts to the lives of all Biblical people and not all facts are in the Bible.

So if God has the audacity to inform his people to information outside

the Bible then he just doesn't have the right.

And there ain't no way a 2000 y.o. history, with only a 2000 y.o. book

and all this time they still don't know who shot john, who did or didn't

write whatever, now that everyone is language expert of a dozen 2000 y.o. 

 languages, the Bible says whatever you want it to say.

The truth is God doesn't let the truth vary from the actual path

he laid out in the beginning. God supplies information over the

years so we can comprehend and make corrections as we go.