jenny wrote: BuckyOHare wrote:
jenny wrote:when i saw him in june of 2009 he was and is the most beautiful being i have ever seen .
What did he look like?
he has blonde gold hair lighter than mine past his shoulders with natural waves he was wearing a white and blue robe the blue was from the shoulder areas down to the floor the white had long ? sleeves was underneath but they aren't real sleeves like real pretty cloths like a ? priest wears maybe .
he looked almost like the shroud but his face is distorted their and it's not a wide face like it looks his detail is gone in the shroud and his face looks all swollen .......
Quite a departure form the description's given of the "Jesus" by historians of the period, none of which describe the same person. Either by complexion, stature etc.. "Chestnut colored hair", Golden colored hair", "a black beard", "brown hair with black brows", 'dark, shining, curling hair", "a full red beard the color of his hair coming into two points", "like wool", "Olive colored skin", "wheat colored skin", "swarthy skinned" , " skin, of ruddiness in appearance", "blue eyes", 'gray eyes", "brown eyes", "eyes, blue going to brown at the edges", "eyes that continually change color".
Imagine that given as a description given for a bank robber or a person you were looking for, as if you were in an airport....
Then we have this, QUOTING:
"A team of forensic scientists recently attempted to recreate what Jesus may have looked like based on human remains from the area and time period in which Jesus is believed to have existed. However, this image does not reveal any specific details about what Jesus looked like; it is intended only to give a view of the typical person living in Jesus' time and place. In the December 2002 edition of Popular Mechanics, Jesus was shown as looking like a typical Galilean Semite. Among the points made was that the Bible records that Jesus' disciple Judas had to point him out to those arresting him. The implied argument being that if Jesus' physical appearance differed that markedly from his disciples, then he would have been relatively easy to identify."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_of_Je ... ical_Jesus
A Galilean Semite is given as most likely, based on burial evidence from the region and of the period. Then you have prophecy that stated the "Jesus" was supposed to be a descendant of David, but, the Catholic church in an authorized response concerning the lineage from David admits that was likely fabricated and there isn't a way to verify Mary's lineage either, nor does Marys lineage matter, since Jewish lineal heritage and prophecy demands the "Jesus" be of direct descent of David. Father to son etc...
We can't help that the norm of Judaic culture marginalized women of the day, and didn't take into consideration women in bloodlines or lineage. It was, the word of "god", after all. This was a requirement of the bible. Fortunately, that sort of treatment of women has begun to change, after a very long time, and still a way to go, but it is better.
So, lets go with an image of a Galilean Semite......
This is what the general consensus is that the "Jesus", looked like in a general, nonspecific way.
If he existed he would have been around 5'1" tall, and about 110 pounds.
The above image is what I would expect the 'Jesus" to look like. When I was Christian, I thought it was common knowledge the images and descriptions given were from a western or European perspective. Just like Middle Eastern, African, or South American images depict the 'Jesus" as being from that region, etc...(â€œhe had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him,â€ Isa. 53:2)
The above verse from Isaiah describes what the "Messiah" would look like, and by prophecy, must
But those prophecies weren't fulfilled.
Judaism doesn't accept the Jesus as Messiah, and it isn't because they are stubborn.================================================================================================
Care about people's approval and you will be their prisoner.--Tao Te Ching