To: Barnabus who wrote (9200 ) 10/31/1997 10:32:00 AM From: Jane Hafker Respond to of 39621
Jack, I am SO glad you brought that up, and as God Himself is my witness this is absolutely at the top of my must do when I have at least 30 minutes in Strongs. Oh boy, don't get me going here, but we will talk later, o.k.? Because Isiah spoke probably of what wouldl happen to the physical appearance of Jesus after satan's men got hold of him--and they did get hold of him for so many hours all studies agree he should have died prior to the cross but was so tough He could take it all--we have a strange doctrine of not only a "plain" Jesus, but one brother earnestly looked me in the eyes for weeks at the same prayer meetings until I ceased being able to attend them and hammered on HIS theory that that Jesus wwas maybe even deformed, and would STAY that way for all eternity for us as a reminder. Like I said, Jack, I have been through little wars, great wars, small fires, bonfires, I've been the the high mountain following other people I did not serve to be with, and then ended up happily rooting back in the pigpen for awhile in a state of temporary insanity, I believe. But through it all I know that Father God did not create his savior son to be hard to look at so it would baffle us. SORRY. There is NO scripture whatsoever to back that up, except that "he was more marred than any other man". Jack, I beg you. Do you take that scripture literally and really believe that in all of creation there was no human born who ever looked worse? Of all doctrine, I believe this is one that serves us all the least, and I cannot grasp any reason in it for a second. It defies logic. It defies intelligence, and since it is a huge doctrine taken from a verse in Isiah, period, I'll stick with the 200 pages of description of him written by those who loved him. If he was almost embarrassingly ugly, believe me, it would have been mentioned. Otherwise, I believe we're really off in the bushes on that. And if he wasn't embarrassingly ugly, as the Isiah scripture implies--more than anyone else imaginable--then why must we then decide as a carpenter hauling heavy wood his whole youth that he was also an emaciated anorex, pale and disgusting, with that dreadful hollow face and blank eyes staring heavenward that all of the catholics ended up with in their awful artistic rendering of my Savior. OF COURSE the Virgin Mary is presented as utterly georgeous. How, I ask, could such a georgeous woman whose genetic union, as we are told by scripture and I certainly believe, was with God Almight Himself have produced such a poor product as represented on canvas? So, if you believe the artists renditions of Mary, as I'm SURE you do, and you agree with the artists renderings of Jesus as you agree, where does any of it make sense from any standpoint? I'm not even arguing. I'm saying that if I'm in the dark, please prove the scripture to lead me out of it. Jack, I'm just saying let's stick to the facts, and I know you do, and I think there's more possibility here that the established doctrine is in error than I'm in error because I've never bought it for a second. The closer we get to the Light, the better and better it gets. I just seek to get back, and that's why I dearly love this thread. I believe there should be millions of them, and we should try to make that happen. I also usually write in the morning before work or too late at night and have little time to make sense of what I've banged out. Please forgive me if it is not understandable, and let us agree to disagree until we have the Truth. Jesus is the Truth. The Holy Spirit exists to show us the Truth. We will get the Truth if we ask.