>>211634471
Jesus didn't have long hair as it would've dishonored the Father, he also wore pants or breeches which are mentioned all the way back in Exodus for the priests (not some little brown summer dress or "tunic"). Jesus rebuked those who wore long clothing/robes.
>I. Corinthians 11:3-4
>3But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
>4Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
If you read the chapter and the context: Long hair = covering, men who pray or preach with long hair = dishonoring Christ. If Christ prayed or preached with long hair, he'd have been dishonoring the Father. But Christ always did those things which pleased the Father.
>John 8:29 And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him.
You should stop using false depictions of Christ that came from the faggoty roman catholic church where their priests dress like mother, are blasphemously called "father" and act like fags. Also, making depictions of Christ at all is basically saying he's not God, as God commanded not to make images of him. And if you look into the manuscripts the Vat-of-sin promotes, they attack the deity of Christ. There's a reason you won't find a bible based solely on the codex sinaiaticus, for example.
https://youtu.be/A2fuqyhQDEg
And as warning, Chicktracts promotes Calvinism and "repent of your sins" (turn from sins to be saved) salvation, rather than the biblical Acts 16:31 believe and be saved.
The Bible is what you should base your beliefs on, not traditions and not a bunch of catholic priests who commissioned some artist to paint some faggot as a roman/greek god and claim it's Jesus -- because it's not Jesus, and you have no idea what he even looked like anyway as there's no description in Scripture of how he looked during his earthly ministry (and God did that for a reason).