Posted on 10/25/2006 6:22:33 PM PDT by Nachum
Now that's funny.
That's a picture of Jesus in his glorified resurrected state. It says nothing to his earthly existence.
Whatever his appearance, he was not an attractive man.
Isa 53:1-3
Who has believed our message
and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?
2 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.
3 He was despised and rejected by men,
a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering.
Like one from whom men hide their faces
he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
He had a face when he walked the earth. A face, a human body, was needed then. It is not needed now.
He now wears the face each human soul needs to see-IF they need to see a certain face to accept Him.
Perhaps that is why there is no physical description of Him written by those who knew him. Isn't that amazing? The most important human to ever live was not described by those who knew who He was!
Perhaps, in talking with each other after his Ascension, they realized they had all seen Him differently ?
If I saw a face like Jim Caviezel and you saw what you expected the Messiah to look like would we be aware that we were not seeing the same image? And-if what you saw contradicted what I saw, how could we agree on how to describe Him?
We could not. Perhaps those who walked with Him could not, so they gave no description.
And the ambiguity continues thousands of years later. We will never know the One Face unless the Shroud is real. And even then- that face may not have been the only one He projected.
I suppose when the gays portay Jesus as a white faggot you won't have a problem with that.
I say Jesus is my Savior and his color matters as much to me as his belt size........not at all!
Exactly.
I don't believe there is any physical description of Jesus, at least regarding the color of His hair and skin, while on earth in the scripture.
All the pictures I've seen show him as a slightly sickly, slim white man with long hair, parted down the middle, and a beard.
Except for that famous "Lauging Jesus" pencil sketch from the seventies, in all the Christian book stores.
So were the Romans, evidently.
They already have.
Really? Do you have specifics? How did I know that saying the most outlandish thing in my head would have a ring of truth to it.
It's been done. You miss a memo? And I wasn't the least bit interested in buying a ticket, but I wasn't about to suicide-bomb the theater, either.
The suicide thing is a muslim thing. But anyone portraying a gay Christ would probably get the full support of 'ole Beezlebub. That I'm sure.
Sorry. Anthropologically speaking, the races are Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid, and maybe Australoid.
By all accounts, Jesus was likely Caucasoid or Caucasian.
Sorry. Anthropologically speaking, there is no such thing as race. Scientists deal with populations.
Jesus is God and nowhere in the Bible is homosexuality condoned and everywhere it is mentioned it is condemned...so a gay Jesus is no Jesus at all.
And ironically He attracted a huge enough following that the religious leaders of His time considered Him a real threat.
Oh just give me one big, honkin' break......
Are blacks really this insecure? How pathetic.........
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.