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 ballbin@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