O
It may be possible that Jesus may appear as a black man to some people when He comes (after all, He became a Jew during His first coming). All in good time…
Acts 1:10-11It may be possible that Jesus may appear as a black man to some people when He comes (after all, He became a Jew during His first coming). All in good time…![]()
I think many false prophets will come to lead the elect astray. In fact, they alreadty have.
Precisely, Lev. He rose in a definite, albeit now-glorified, body, the same body with which He will return.Acts 1:10-11
They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. “Men of Galilee,” they said, "why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven."
No, Christ is the incarnation of God. It is the perfect union of the divine and human. That said, He became a man, and a Jewish man to be more specific. He did not simply take on the appearance of a man. He actually became a man and He happened to take on the Jewish genes. He will appear as He was when He ascended because what He was when He ascended is who He truely is. What He took on in the incarnation was His and it was concrete.
“It’s return to Earth” refers to whom exactly?
I think this is a rather serious question because it deals with the union of natures in Christ. It seems that this idea that Christ could appear as a black man destroys the concreteness of Christ’s human nature. It is something that Christ only took on the appearance of. Christ had a specific human nature.“It’s return to Earth” refers to whom exactly?
I will assume that the OP is French, but still respectfully request that the post title be edited.
As to Christ’s physical appearance: that (like the timing of His return) is a matter of Divine will and not for us to bother our heads about. All that matters is that He comes to rule the earth.
What do you mean, “destroys the concreteness of Christ’s human nature”? Do we really know what Christ looked like when He walked this earth? For that matter, did the people of that region look like they do today? I will echo a former poster’s comments: define black. To my knowledge, black people span a wide spectrum of appearances and skin tones, so black isn’t even an objective standard.I think this is a rather serious question because it deals with the union of natures in Christ. It seems that this idea that Christ could appear as a black man destroys the concreteness of Christ’s human nature. It is something that Christ only took on the appearance of. Christ had a specific human nature.
Personally I think it is ridiculous that people today are trying to claim Jesus was black.
I believe that the original question was ‘could He return as a black person’, not whether He was black. My point was, the term *black *as commonly used today, covers a whole range of appearances and skin pigments and Christ can choose whatever appearance He desires, regardless of our approval or lack of it.Personally I think it is ridiculous that people today are trying to claim Jesus was black.This myth came about during the 60’s when the ‘Afrocentrist’ movement started. Afrocentrists like to claim all sorts of people were black, such examples are: the Egyptians, the Israelites, the ‘original Chinese’, the ‘original Vikings’, even Beethoven and Mozart! These people who make these sort of claims are just racists themselves who want to twist history to fit their agendas.
Christ lived in the land of Palestine, and at that time people were predominately Mediterranean Caucasians with strains of Armenoid and Dinaric racial traits. To sum it up: He looked like a person Mediterranean area.
He is a reconstruction of what Christ looked like based on the Shroud of Turin:
http://conservation.catholic.org/jesus-turin-web4.jpg
It doesn’t matter exactly what the Jews looked like. He will return in the same way He left. He chose to become a specific man and that is who He is. He is not just some general idea of a man that could appear as a white man or a black man or what ever. This question by the op basically says that Christ only took on the appearance of a man. According to it He doesn’t actually have the flesh and blood of Mary.What do you mean, “destroys the concreteness of Christ’s human nature”? Do we really know what Christ looked like when He walked this earth? For that matter, did the people of that region look like they do today? I will echo a former poster’s comments: define black. To my knowledge, black people span a wide spectrum of appearances and skin tones, so black isn’t even an objective standard.
Bottom line, I AM WHO I AM will look like He chooses to look.
His glorification certainly changed His body in lots of ways though - He still had His wounds but they were neither lethal nor painful, He walked through walls and disappeared at Emmaus. He ascended in that body to Heaven. He could hide His identity from people seemingly at will, eg from the disciples of the Road to Emmaus and Mary Magdalene.It doesn’t matter exactly what the Jews looked like. He will return in the same way He left. He chose to become a specific man and that is who He is. He is not just some general idea of a man that could appear as a white man or a black man or what ever. This question by the op basically says that Christ only took on the appearance of a man. According to it He doesn’t actually have the flesh and blood of Mary.