BWA6067@TAMAGEN (02/06/90)
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
bin@PRIMATE.WISC.EDU (Brain in Neutral) (02/07/90)
From article <CHRISTIA%90020616122171@FINHUTC>, by BWA6067@TAMAGEN: > 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* Malcolm X said that Jesus wasn't white, He was black, and the teaching that He was white was just to get black men to submit to the white man. Remarkably perceptive for someone that lived 2000 years later, to be able to tell that someone's skin color was black, particularly someone that was born of Jewish parents. :-) Paul DuBois Internet: dubois@primate.wisc.edu UUCP: rhesus!dubois FAX: 608/263-4031