Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!umich!samsung!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!wuarchive!psuvax1!psuvm!TAMAGEN!BWA6067
From: BWA6067@TAMAGEN
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: The appearance of Jesus -- QB
Message-ID: <CHRISTIA%90020616122171@FINHUTC>
Date: 6 Feb 90 01:01:00 GMT
Sender: Practical Christian Life <CHRISTIA@FINHUTC>
Reply-To: Practical Christian Life <CHRISTIA@FINHUTC>
Lines: 22
Approved: NETNEWS@PSUVM Gateway
Original_To:  JNET%"christia@finhutc"



       Call me a cynic, but it has been my contention that those who
       make an issue out of Jesus' appearance have some kind of
       hidden agenda.  I have myself been guilty of that...those of
       us who (rightly or wrongly) ascribe some surpassing
       importance and emphasis to the masculinity of Christian males
       often extrapolate conceptions of Jesus' ruddy masculinity
       from His trade, carpentry.  It is invariably speculation on
       my part when I do so, for I have no Scriptural or secular
       historical evidence that Jesus was big, husky, and strong.  I
       have a hard time imagining Him as a pale, wimpy man, but
       again, that tells you much more about *me* than it does about
       Jesus.

       I must concur with Lauren that Jesus' appearance/skin color
       don't really matter, but for curiosity's sake, it is probably
       wiser to assume that He looked similar to today's Middle
       Easterners.  After all, 2000 years isn't a long enough time
       for significant evolution to have taken place.  *grin*

                for what it's worth, queue ball