It is unclear if the term was used at all. Up until the destruction of the Second Temple, the monarchy and the Priestly system still ruled. The Rabbinic system started to evolve during the exile, but Rabbis per say did not truly emerge until agter the destruction of the Second Temple.
Do you claim any religious faith? / How are you on sharing?
- Thread starter Jenna
- Start date
It is unclear if the term was used at all. Up until the destruction of the Second Temple, the monarchy and the Priestly system still ruled. The Rabbinic system started to evolve during the exile, but Rabbis per say did not truly emerge until agter the destruction of the Second Temple.
Jesus is always portrayed with a beard.
Someone once told me that in Jewish culture only a married man has a beard.
Was that true or was the person full of crap?
Someone once told me that in Jewish culture only a married man has a beard.
Was that true or was the person full of crap?
granfire
Sr. Grandmaster
considering that most pictures are the product of later times....I don't think jewish custom plays much into it.
It's been a while since I have thumbed through my history books, but I do believe beards are more of a sign of manhood than marriage (though one can probably argue that both go hand in hand, especially in the olden days.)
The beard certainly has significance in the iconography. slap me upside the head, I can't pull the remnants of info from my caffeine deprived brain...adulthood, status of a free man or something like that.
Full of crap.
We are commanded to not "cut the corners of our head". It is generally interpreted as not shaving. Certainly not close to the skin with a blade. There are electric shavers that act more like scisors than blade that are acceptable. In Jesus' time, a beard would have been standard.
oftheherd1
Senior Master
Was there not a vow where the head had to be shaven? How was that accounted for, as I must guess it was. What brought it to my mind, was in the New Testament, Paul is encouraged to join four men who had a vow, and "Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law." EDIT: To explain, Paul had long since told gentiles that they didn't have to keep the law, especially concerning circumcism and dietary things. The apostle James, and elders wanted to show those Christian Jews who insisted on keeping the law, that at least Paul did so as well.
Let me say again how much I appreciate the patience of you and Tez3 in explaining things. It isn't something that we non-Jews often get a chance to ask a Jew about.
Last edited:
It's not often a discussion as good as this between faiths and those of no faiths happens! Much thanks to everyone!
Would non shaving be more comfortable and practicable? I have to say I am not a fan of beards nor any other facial hair to be honest!
No. The closest to a vow regarding hair was the Nazir, which involved not cutting your hair at all. Samson is the famous example.
When we groom, we just don't use a blade. It's also where the sidelocks come from. Comes from Leveticus 19-27 "Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard."
Not shaving is certainly much easier. I put a trimmer through my beard once every couple of weeks.
Sexuality is complicated.
King James I fathered eight children, and wrote pretty severely against sodomy.
On the other hand, he had several close friendships with men that aroused more than a little ire among his contemporaries: He lived in near-exile as the young king of Scotland, and his first long-term relationship was with Esmé Stewart, 1st Duke of Lennox-James was later forced to banish him. He had an affair with a woman named Anne Murray, and one with a man named Robert Carr, and George Villiers, the Duke of Buckingham.
You can read a pretty straightforward wiki article on the relationships of King James, here.
Interestingly, it's all pretty well supported by articles, letters and poems of the time, and James' own letters and public statements. The restoration of his home, Agelthorpe Hall, in 2008, revealed a previously unknown secret passage between his bedchamber and that of the Duke of Buckingham.
It was pretty commonly known at the time: when James' carriage passed through London, crowds would call out "Queen James!"
Does all that really mean anything, in terms of the version of the Bible that bears his name? Not at all.
As Christians know tomorrow is Maundy Thursday, here that means the Queen handing out the Maundy Monday, this year she's at York Minster just down the road from me. Obviously I shan't be going ( however working for the Crown I get a half day off or if working double time) but this ceremony should interest history buffs as well because it's been going since the 15th century. King James, he of the translation, would have done this and washed the recipients feet as well.
http://www.royal.gov.uk/RoyalEventsandCeremonies/RoyalMaundyService/Maundyservice.aspx
http://www.royal.gov.uk/RoyalEventsandCeremonies/RoyalMaundyService/Maundyservice.aspx
I didn't realize that tradition was still standing! Thanks for sharing that....I find it very interesting
I didn't realize that tradition was still standing! Thanks for sharing that....I find it very interesting
I do as well, not from a religious point of view but from historically. I know Canuck wouldn't visit Christain places of worship nor would I if they were just churches etc but I love visiting our cathedrals, minsters and the very old Saxon churches here. The architecture of the cathedrals and minsters is astounding and considering they were built as far back as the 11th century CE without machinery, it's amazing to wonder how they built these huge buildings. The oldest church here is 7th century CE. The oldest synagogue here is 18th century and is beautiful. You can visit it as they do tours, it's well worth seeing if you can ever make it. http://www.bevismarks.org.uk/
All of these are considered national treasures, they are hugely historically important. The religious aspect doesn't have to stop people from admiring the buildings.
Actually, I would. On the spectrum, I'd define myself as Modern Orthodox. I would never attend a religious service, or enter any ordinary place of worship, but places of historical or artistic significance I would, and have, go into.
ANd yet the Gospels all use the term towards Jesus-though it's likely that, in it's connotation of "master."
Of course, none of the Gospels was written until the period of the destruction of the Second Temple, at the earliest, and more likely somehwat later. "Traditional Christian scholarship" tries to put them all earlier, like around 50 A.D., but there is no evidence to support this-heck, the entire Gospels we have date from the 4th century, and we only have fragments from before that, so they are variously dated-conservatilvely-between 65-68 A.D. and 80-110 A.D., depending upon which part of which Gospel you're talking about, and what "authority" you're talking to.
In any case, a more than sufficient case has been made for the inherent errors and mistranslations in the KJV-some of them of no small consequence.
In the end, does it really make any difference in a matter of faith? Not at all.
He was full of chap, and in any event, the earliest pictures of him don't have him with a beard... Actually, a lot of them don't.
Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk
My mom is reform so when she was if Israel she did see the chit h of the holy sepulchre... But somewhat secretly, and made herself look like an American tourist. Even wore jeans!
(My stepdad is Chabad-Lubavich... Hence the secrecy)
Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk
Reform and Chabad, must make for interesting times around the dinner table.
Especially with all that that vodka!
Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk
Sadly I have been to services, four military funerals in three years and a few before that over the years. Not to go to the funerals of people I knew well who died in Afghan wouldn't have been right somehow, military funerals here are more of a symbol perhaps than a religious service, they were all Church of England which is very good at not being religious, Englishmen finding it somehow not the thing to be 'nosily' religious. The services were very quiet and dignified, people attended regardless of of their faith or whether they had one. Religious leaders here including the Chief Rabbi agree that attending military funerals like this is the right thing to do regardless of where they are held. Desparately sad though all of them, so many young lives gone. It's that I think that pervades the services along with pride in the fallen, perhaps it's an English thing, that there's still the 'stiff upper lip', there's little 'religion' in the services tbh. The quiet dignity of the families in their grief puts the politicians to shame.
In 1980, I returned to university to study engineering, at SUNY @ Stonybrook, which had an excellent religious studies department-so I took religious studies classes for my humanities requirements. I'll never forget Dr. Park walking in, asking "what is religion?" and writing this on the blackboard (yes, they still had them then!! :lol: ):
Life/Death
After circling it, underneath he wrote, What does this mean?
It's only right and proper that you attend the funerals (and weddings, and, sometimes, baptisms or bris) of those of other faiths-but especially, funerals.
Death. It's what we've all got in common, after all.......
