[bonfire]

All things considered ... I suspect that Jesus was NOT very attractive ... .

I was thinking about that same thing today. My thinking is: Why wouldn't God send someone that was pleasing to the eye? Why do we always assume Jesus must have been ugly? Maybe he was really beautiful.

[drlevy88]

To fit with prophecy that he "had no stately form or majesty that we should be drawn to him." This could allude by constrast, to the loser, Saul, who was picked as king by seeming unanimous consensus of the Israelites just because he was such a tall, handsome looker. Who knows how Jesus looked, but compliments to his physique take up exactly 0% of the bible.

[nmh]

"I was thinking about that same thing today. My thinking is: Why wouldn't God send someone that was pleasing to the eye? Why do we always assume Jesus must have been ugly? Maybe he was really beautiful."

Actually it is the opposite that is promoted - Jesus being a strickingly handsome man. Josephus a Jewsih historian clearly states that he was unattractive, in fact ugly. For me the "ugly" description seems to lend more credence.

Jews expected Jesus to be born in wealth and to free them. Neither was true. Jesus stated to LOVE your enemies - totally unheard of; people hated their enemies ... so alot of Jesus said was NOT what people wanted to hear nor expected. He was a Nazarene. Again people thought nothing good come come out of that as well.

[agrarianlady]

I was thinking about that same thing today. My thinking is: Why wouldn't God send someone that was pleasing to the eye? Why do we always assume Jesus must have been ugly? Maybe he was really beautiful.

A THOUSAND TIMES NO.

Isaiah 53

He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.