Rutherford didn`t like beards..So he decided Jesus needed a shave.....Be grateful Rutherford did`nt dress Jesus in a cheap suit,holding a Watchtower!..LOL!!.......................
...OUTLAW
Watchtower 1954 "Jesus was clean shaven and had short hair?? What!
by Witness 007 22 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
OUTLAW
-
blondie
OLD LIGHT
*** w54 8/15 p. 511 Questions From Readers ***
The traditional picture of Jesus shows him with long hair and beard, but the Watch Tower publications illustrate him as beardless and with short hair. Which is correct?—M. H., United States.
The later Watch Tower publications show Jesus as beardless and with short hair because he is shown that way in representations of him that are older than the traditional effeminate-looking picture. In an ancient beaker or cup found at Antioch, Syria, which purports to represent Jesus and his disciples at the Memorial supper, Jesus is engraved thereon as a beardless young man while some of his disciples are pictured with beards. For a photograph of this see Harper’s BibleDictionary, page 22, in the midst of the article "Antioch, the Chalice of." (M. S. and J. L. Miller, 1952) The scholarly book by Jack Finegan, LightfromtheAncientPast, tells of second-century Christian paintings found in the Catacomb of Priscilla, in the room Cappella Greca, and states:
"The painting of the Resurrection of Lazarus is now almost effaced but it is still possible to recognize that on one side is depicted a small building containing a mummy and on the other, the sister of Lazarus standing with arms upraised. In the middle Christ is shown, facing toward the tomb and with the right hand uplifted in a gesture of speech. He is represented in the Roman type, and is dressed in tunic and pallium, the left hand holding the garment. He is youthful and beardless, with short hair and large eyes. . . . The picture is of great interest since it is the oldest representation of Jesus that is preserved anywhere."—Page 371.
Further on this book tells of the painting of the Healing of the Paralytic (Mark 2:1-12) found in the house church in the excavated ancient settlement of Dura in the Syrian desert, and states: "The almost destroyed painting of Christ in the Catacomb of Priscilla at Rome probably belongs, as we have seen, to the middle of the second century. The painting at Dura is dated even more definitely in the first part of the third century. In both pictures Christ is shown as a young and beardless man with short hair and wearing the ordinary costume of the day. These and similar portrayals are the earliest type of Christ as far as is now known in early Christian art. Later in the third century Christ appears still as youthful but with long, curly hair, and from the fourth century on the more familiar bearded type appears."—Pages 408, 409.
As recently as October 7, 1949, the new east window of Stepney Parish Church, the mother church of East London, England, was unveiled by the Earl of Athlone. The photograph of this church window, as published in "The Illustrated London News," October 1, 1949, shows a cross with a young man nailed to it, beardless and with short hair, to represent "Christ crucified, but triumphant."
Since the Bible does not describe Jesus’ facial appearance or indicate he had a beard of length, we follow the oldest archaeological evidence rather than the later traditional view that makes Jesus appear effeminate and sallow and sanctimonious. Some use Isaiah 50:6 as proof that Jesus had a beard: "I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair: I hid not my face from shame and spitting." This may have been literally fulfilled in a typical way upon Isaiah, foreshadowing the shameful insults and reproaches to be heaped upon the servant class, the primary one of whom is Christ Jesus. Each one of the servant class suffers reproaches, but not necessarily all of the ones here specified. The record shows Jesus was whipped, slapped and spat on, but no mention is made of beard-plucking. If it had happened why would it not have been named along with the other abuses and insults? (Matt. 27:26; Mark 14:65, NW) In fact, the Septuagint rendering of Isaiah 50:6 does not mention the cheeks’ being plucked of hair, but as being slapped instead: "I gave my back to scourges, and my cheeks to blows; and I turned not away my face from the shame of spitting." The record in the Gospels states all this did literally happen to Jesus.
NEW LIGHT
*** w68 5/1 pp. 286-288 Questions From Readers ***
When Jesus Christ was a man on earth, did he wear a beard?—K.A., U.S.A.Biblical evidence is the most reliable testimony to be found on this question, and a recent careful review of what it says indicates that Jesus did indeed have a beard.
Jesus, born a Jew, "came to be under law" and he fulfilled the Law. (Gal. 4:4; Matt. 5:17) This was in order that he might pave the way for the abolishing of the Law and for release of the Jews from the curse of the Law, the condemnation of death that it brought against them. (Eph. 2:15; Gal. 3:13) Like all other Jews, Jesus was under obligation to keep the whole law. One of the commandments of the Law was: "You must not cut your side locks short around, and you must not destroy the extremity of your beard." (Lev. 19:27) God doubtless gave Israel this law because among some pagans it was the practice to cut the beard in a certain fashion in worship of their gods. (Jer. 9:26; 25:23) Nevertheless, that law did not mean that a beard was not to be well kept, for in the Near East a well-groomed beard was considered a symbol of dignity and respectability.—2 Sam. 19:24.
During extreme grief, shame or humiliation, one might pluck hairs from his beard or leave the beard or the mustache untended. (Ezra 9:3) In several prophetic statements, the shaving off of the beard was used figuratively to illustrate great mourning because of calamity. (Isa. 7:20; 15:2; Jer. 48:37; Ezek. 5:1) Significantly, a prophecy concerning Jesus’ suffering states: "My back I gave to the strikers, and my cheeks to those plucking off the hair." (Isa. 50:6) Hanun the king of Ammon grossly insulted the ambassadors kindly sent by David by cutting off half of their beards. Because of their great humiliation, David told these men to dwell in Jericho until their beards grew abundantly. This act of Hanun was, of course, aimed at David as an insult, and provoked war.—2 Sam. 10:1-8; 1 Chron. 19:1-7.
Also, it was generally customary for men to wear beards, even before the law covenant was made. While the Hebrews did not make monuments with figures of themselves, many monuments and inscriptions have been found in Egypt and Mesopotamia and other Near-Eastern lands in which Assyrians, Babylonians and Canaanites are pictured with beards, and some representations dated as far back as the third millennium B.C.E. show beards of varying styles. Among the above-named peoples eunuchs were the only ones depicted as beardless. Often boys were made eunuchs so that later they could be used to care for the king’s harem. (Matt. 19:12) This making eunuchs of men was not a practice in Israel, however, because the Law excluded eunuchs from the congregation of Israel. (Deut. 23:1) At the time Jesus was on earth, the Roman custom was beardlessness. Therefore, if Jesus had been beardless he might have been challenged as either a eunuch or a Roman.
Men of ancient Semitic groups, as we have seen in our consideration of ancient monuments, wore beards, even prior to the time of the Mosaic law. Since a beard grows naturally on most men, it is reasonable to conclude that their forefathers also wore beards. Consequently, it seems evident that Noah, Enoch, Seth and Seth’s father Adam were likewise bearded men.
It is appropriate, however, to give consideration to arguments advanced to the effect that Jesus was beardless. This idea has been largely based on theories built up by certain archaeologists with regard to the so-called "Chalice of Antioch." This is a large silver beaker or cup within a silver framework shell of vines and figures of men. On one side of the cup is a boy, with five men facing him, and on the other side a young but more mature man, beardless, with five others facing him. All appear to be seated. The cup, supposedly found by some natives in Antioch of Syria, was acclaimed as being of the second half of the first century C.E., and therefore the earliest pictorial representation of Christ.
However, an analysis of the facts now makes it evident that the figures on the cup have been identified according to the imagination of the individuals interpreting them. The boy is considered to be Jesus at the age of twelve and the other central figure is said to be Jesus, possibly after his resurrection, or, again, it may be John the Baptist. The other ten figures have been interpreted variously to be ten of the apostles; or the apostles and evangelists; or, on one side the four evangelists with James the son of Zebedee, and on the other side Peter, Saul, James, Jude and Andrew.
There are serious objections made by many archaeologists to these identifications. Really it has been guesswork, and it is impossible to say what is represented by the figures. Some even doubt the authenticity of the cup, believing that it may be a forgery. Most, however, acknowledge it as an authentic discovery but give it a much later date, from the fourth to the sixth century. So it is very doubtful that the cup is an early representation of Christ, if, indeed, it was intended to portray Christ at all.—See TheBiblicalArchaeologist, December 1941 and February 1942.
Bearing directly on the question is the fact that the early Christian writers, Justin Martyr, Origen, Clement of Alexandria and others, clearly indicate that no satisfactory record of the physical likeness of Jesus and the apostles existed in their time. Augustine, writing about 400 C.E. (DeTrinitate, VIII, 4), said that each man had his own idea of Christ’s appearance, and the concepts were infinite.
Evidence from the Roman catacombs has been adduced to bear on the subject. In catacombs thought by some to date from the second century C.E., but by others as no earlier than the third century, pictures have been found. The unusually extensive catacomb called the Catacomb of Priscilla contains wall pictures, one of which is thought to portray the resurrection of Lazarus. It is almost obliterated and is very difficult to make out, but in the center there is a figure that has been taken to be Christ, depicted as a young beardless man. But in the catacombs apocryphal and false religious ideas are also plentifully represented. For example, in the Catacomb of Priscilla, and of about the same date, is a scene of the apocryphal Story of Susanna. A ceiling painting dated a little later contains a Madonna with child, with a star above her head. In the Crypts of Lucina a ceiling painting dated as the middle of the second century includes a little winged person, known as Erotes or Amoretti, which, on pagan tombs, represented departed souls. Therefore, it has become evident to us that the catacomb representations of Jesus are seriously questionable as to authenticity.
It is true that, beginning with the fourth century, the majority of pictures show Christ and his apostles with beards, having emaciated, sad, weak and effeminate "monastic" countenances, usually with a pagan nimbus or halo. These are surely no true representations of the man Jesus Christ, of whom Pontius Pilate said: "Look! The man!" or of him who overturned the tables of the money changers in the temple, and drove their cattle out, neither of the apostles, who vigorously preached God’s Word until it spread over all the Roman Empire. (John 19:1, 5; 2:14-17) No, these were strong, active and happy men, servants of the happy God Jehovah. (1 Tim. 1:11; 6:14, 15; Acts 20:35) The dreary religious pictures are products of the apostasy, which by the fourth century was in full bloom, pagan Emperor Constantine making a fusion of apostate Christianity with pagan religion the State religion.
Nevertheless, as already shown, it is apparent that Jesus did wear a beard, and so artistic representations of him in future Watch Tower publications will harmonize with the Scriptural evidence to that effect.
Doubtless the early Christians followed the custom of the time and locality in which they lived, with regard to the wearing of a beard. The Roman custom was beardlessness. Romans converted to Christianity would very likely continue in the Roman custom, while converts from the Jewish community would continue in the Jewish custom of wearing a beard.
Today Christian ministers, like the early Christians, are concerned with neatness and cleanness, but they strive to dress inconspicuously, so that their appearance does not in any way detract from the dignity or the effectiveness of the message they bear. (2 Cor. 6:3, 4) In recent years in many lands a beard or long hair on a man attracts immediate notice and may, in the minds of the majority, classify such a person undesirably with extremists or as rebels against society. God’s ministers want to avoid making any impression that would take attention away from their ministry or hinder anyone from listening to the truth. They know that people are watching true Christians very critically and that to a great extent they judge the entire congregation and the good news by the minister’s appearance as a representative of the congregation.
In paradise restored on earth it would not be out of order if men returned to wearing beards, in perfect fashion, like Adam in Eden.
-
VM44
The 1954 Watchtower "answer" shows extremely poor scholarship in justifying a beardless Jesus.
-
Quirky1
Thanks to Gillette for the first razor.....
-
kurtbethel
It's true. Rutherford realized that Jesus had an image problem, so he had some image consultants clean him up the be more marketable.
There is a whole page of Trim Jesus here.
-
shamus100
Jesus looks a little fruitey here... hmmm... maybe they thought he was a homosexual too.
-
avishai
Actually he kinda looks like another famous jew....Kirk Douglas..Or maybe Danny Kaye.
-
Farkel
It has already been pointed out that JFR wanted to erase the practice of wearing beards from his new pet Cult. This was due to the fact that many brothers were wearing long beards like Chuckie Russell wore because of their affection for him. Rutherford not only banned beards from the Bethel family, he banned JESUS from having one!
I will now demolish this WTS red herring:
:Do you remember in the 1960s when the Question From Readers asked, “Did Jesus have a beard?” (audience laughter) Remember that one? Boy, did we ever get flak in congregations on that one! One little question from the reader, “Did Jesus have a beard,” and it said, “Yes”. Then all of our publications that showed Jesus without a beard; he was a clean-shaven man. Then it went on to say that the fragmentary evidence that we had at our disposal that would seem to indicate that Jesus was clean-shaven was “faulty evidence”. Its belief in origin was not even a depiction of Jesus Christ at all. That Jesus was a Jew and Hebrew men had beards neatly trimmed, and therefore hereonafter our publications will show Jesus with a beard. Did you know that back in Brother Russell’s day Jesus had a beard? (audience laughter) And then in Brother Rutherford’s day Jesus’ beard came off, and then in the 1960s we put his beard back on? (audience laughter) Huh, how does that make you feel? What sort of organization is this?! Well, I used to tell the brothers, “Look, whether Jesus had a beard or didn’t have a beard, is he the Son of God?” “Yes.” “Did he provide a ransom, does his shed blood redeem us from sin and death?” “Yes.” “Is he the king of the new order?” “Yes.” “Then whether he has a beard or not, does that alter the truth of the Bible?” Not a bit.
In short, the issue is about whether the WTS taught that Jesus had a beard or not. They did teach he had a beard and then they did teach he did not have a beard during and after the Rutherford era.
The "argument/red herring" is not whether the teaching of the beard was false. It was obviously false. They taught he had a beard, and then they taught he didn't have a beard. One of those teaching MUST be false. There is no way the WTS can wiggle out of something so obvious.
NO! They changed the subject! "Is he the Son of God? Yes! Is he the king of the new order? Yes! Whether he had a beard or not, does that alter the truth of the Bible? Not a bit."
It is much easier to prove whether the historical man Jesus had a beard or not, than to prove the historical Jesus is the actual only-begotten son of God. ALL Rabbis had beards then from what I know, and almost all Rabbis were married men. That is a very important fact to remember. Single men were rarely Rabbis.
An argument I would like to see is one from the WTS or anyone else that can produce a single shred of evidence that Rabbis in the day of Jesus were ever, ever clean shaven.
I am waiting. The whole clean shaven Jesus bit is Rutherford's idea and his alone. He hated the memory of Chuckie Russell and would do anything, and I mean anything to erase that memory and make himself King Shit in his Watchtower Cult. He did accomplish that and then he died of asshole cancer.
Farkel -
WTWizard
This just goes to show how they like to make a problem out of nothing. It doesn't matter whether Jesus wore a beard or not--there was a time when he did not. What does matter is that Jesus would rather have people learning to become their own authority figures than having us try to exactly imitate him.
Of course, the reality is that most churches portray Jesus with a beard. While I do not trust any one of them for 100% accuracy (transcription errors and the early Catholic church could have generated errors), the agreement that Jesus did have a beard, plus the fact that most people in that area had beards, suggests a very high likelihood that Jesus did in fact have a beard. And, even if I could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt otherwise, it would be of such puny importance that it would be a waste of electricity to scan it on my computer if I did have a scanner.
-
mkr32208
That site was AWESOME! I don't think it's all accurate (subliminal art has never convinced me of anything) but it sure was FUN!
WTF was up with that assembly where there really only like 2000 people MAYBE in that huge ass stadium?
