to ur next post i have an ans:
@sincereseeker’s critique overlooks the anthropological and historical plausibility of Valtorta’s claim about Galilean physical traits. The passage cited from The Notebooks reflects a theological anthropology rooted in the communio personarum, the idea that human persons are shaped by communal and familial bonds. The observation that Galileans are intermarried resulting in shared physical characteristics, aligns with historical studies of Second Temple Judaism, which note the relative insularity of Galilean communities as we read in Jonathan Reed’s Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus. Valtorta’s reference to “fair-haired Galileans” as rarer but present is not implausible given genetic diversity in the region due to Hellenistic influences.
Moreover, the spiritual resemblance between Jesus and John of Zebedee as noted in the passage underscores the theandric synergy, the cooperation of divine and human wills. This aligns with the Catholic understanding of sanctity, where the Holy Spirit conforms individuals to Christ’s image (Rom 8:29). Valtorta’s emphasis on this resemblance is not a distraction from atonement but a reflection of it, as John’s prophetic role mirrors Christ’s redemptive mission.
The catholic tradition distinguishes between public revelation (Scripture and Tradition, which are definitive and closed with the death of the last apostle) and private revelation (visions or locutions granted to individuals for the benefit of the Church). St. Thomas Aquinas affirms that private revelations can occur to guide the faithful, provided they are discerned by the Church. Valtorta’s writings, which have received varying degrees of ecclesiastical approval, like inclusion in the Vatican’s Osservatore Romano, and endorsements by figures like Archbishop Alfonso Carinci, are not dismissed outright but are subject to discernment. Ur rejection of these writings as extrabiblical ignores the Church’s nuanced approach, which neither mandates belief in private revelations nor forbids their use for spiritual edification.
I forgot to note that in the January 2nd, 1944, dictation by Jesus, when He spoke of “John” He was referring to the apostle John of Zebedee. Apologies for the oversight.
The Bible nowhere gives a physical description of what Jesus looked like during His incarnation. The closest thing we get to a description is in Isaiah 53:2b, “He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to Him, nothing in His appearance that we should desire Him.” All this tells us is that Jesus’ appearance was just like any other man’s – He was ordinary-looking. Isaiah was here prophesying that the coming suffering Servant would arise in lowly conditions and wear none of the usual emblems of royalty, making His true identity visible only to the discerning eye of faith.
Isaiah further describes the appearance of Christ as He would appear as He was being scourged prior to His crucifixion. “His appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any man and his form marred beyond human likeness” (Isaiah 52:14). These words describe the inhuman cruelty He suffered to the point that He no longer looked like a human being (Matthew 26:67; 27:30; John 19:3). His appearance was so awful that people looked at Him in astonishment.
Most of the images we have of Jesus today are probably not accurate. Jesus was a Jew, so He likely had dark skin, dark eyes, and dark hair. This is a far cry from the European/Caucasian Jesus in most modern portrayals. One thing is clear: if it were important for us to know what He really did look like, Matthew, Peter and John, who spent three years with Him, would certainly be able to give us an accurate description, as would His own brothers, James and Jude. Yet, these New Testament writers offer no details about His physical attributes.
Thanks.
J.
Soul, let’s dig into this with clarity, because truth doesn’t blush and it doesn’t backpedal.
First, your claim that Isaiah 53:2 “doesn’t touch on” Jesus’ appearance because of a quote you posted—let’s call that what it is: circular reasoning propped up by a post-biblical text. You’re using a mystical interpretation to override the plain meaning of a prophetic Scripture. But Isaiah 53:2 doesn’t need decoding by private revelations. It’s already crystal clear. “He had no form or majesty that we should look at Him, and no beauty that we should desire Him.” That’s not vague. That’s a divine mic drop on the world’s obsession with physical splendor. It tells us why people missed Him—because He wasn’t what they expected to see.
Now to God Calling. You say it’s not Scripture, but still “inspired.” That’s a word we don’t toss around lightly. “Inspired” doesn’t mean “makes me feel closer to God.” It means God-breathed—authoritative, infallible, binding. 2 Timothy 3:16 applies that word to Scripture alone, not to anonymously channeled devotionals from the 1930s. If you want to say a book is helpful, uplifting, fine. But calling it inspired? That’s theological inflation, and it cheapens the currency of true revelation.
Now to Hebrews 1:1–2—you quoted it, but didn’t finish the thought. The passage doesn’t say “Jesus keeps speaking through random writings and visions.” It says that in these last days, God has spoken by His Son. Past tense. And how do we have access to what the Son spoke? Through the testimony of the apostles—those chosen by Him, commissioned, and sealed by the Spirit to record His Word. That’s why the New Testament is our canon. Sixty-six books. Nothing more. Nothing less. Jude 1:3 says “the faith was once for all delivered to the saints.” Delivered. Completed. Not serialized like a spiritual Netflix show.
Here’s the bottom line: the living Christ speaks through the written Word, not through every wind of private utterance. If it doesn’t align with Scripture, it doesn’t carry authority. And if it adds to what’s already been delivered? Revelation 22:18 issues a sober warning.
Jesus doesn’t need footnotes from mystics. He gave us the Gospel. That’s enough.
—Sincere Seeker. Scripturally savage. Here for the Truth.
You’re right. Let’s fix that.
Samuel_23, I appreciate the tone shift at the end of your message and your commitment to a deep theological conversation. So let’s keep this sharp, biblical, and respectful.
You brought up a lot of valid themes within Catholic theology, especially around the role of private revelation. Yes, the Catechism allows space for it. But it also sets strict boundaries. CCC 67 is clear: private revelations must never claim to improve or complete the deposit of faith. They can encourage, yes. They can edify, yes. But once they start reshaping how we think about Christ in ways the Gospels deliberately left untouched, we’ve crossed into unsafe territory.
My concern is not with Valtorta’s sincerity or emotional impact. It’s with authority. Once you start describing Jesus with intricate aesthetic details like porcelain skin and copper curls, and then assert that these visions carry theological weight, you risk elevating subjective mysticism above objective revelation. Scripture chose silence on Christ’s appearance for a reason. Not because it didn’t matter, but because what mattered more was His mission, not His features.
As for the sacramental imagination, absolutely, the material world reflects divine truths. But it must do so in submission to revealed truth, not imagination dressed as doctrine. Valtorta’s depictions, while poetic, invite readers to anchor their devotion in visual impressions instead of the bloody cross and empty tomb. That’s not just a theological preference. That’s a shift in focus.
You cited saints and scholars who valued mysticism. Fine. But even they submitted every vision, every impression, to the authority of the Word and the judgment of the Church. If a mystical work leads to spiritual fruit, it’s because it magnifies Christ’s atonement and holiness. If it leads us to obsess over imagined facial features or imagined dialogues, it can quietly lead us into another Jesus. Paul warned about that in 2 Corinthians 11.
You say I misused Isaiah 53. But the plain reading supports the very point I made. The Servant is not physically impressive. That doesn’t deny His beauty in the eyes of the faithful. It explains why He was overlooked by the world. There’s no need to allegorize it out of its plain meaning.
Lastly, on Revelation 1, I affirm it is the glorified Christ. But it’s the only Spirit-inspired description we’ve been given. That is not a mistake. That is the portrait the Father wanted us to see. Blazing holiness, not curated aesthetics.
Valtorta’s writings are not forbidden. But they are optional, fallible, and must be tested. I’m not rejecting them because they’re Catholic. I’m challenging them because we are told to test all spirits. Even the poetic ones.
Stay grounded. Stay sharp. Stay in the Word.
Sincere Seeker. Scripturally savage. Here for the Truth.
I said Is. 53:2 doesn’t touch on Jesus’s physical appearance, not appearance. If you want to stand by your literal interpretation that Isaiah’s words (53:2), in part, meant that Jesus’s physical appearance was essentially ugly or unappealing, so be it. How would that be prophetic, considering the “crucial detail” that “the Gospels, inspired by the Holy Spirit, are silent on Jesus’ physical appearance”?
Is that satire? Oh, the irony in calling Maria Valtorta’s descriptions of Christ as “poetic fantasy” whilst referring to the apostle John’s poetic descriptions of Christ. The key difference linguistically is that the former is literal and the latter is figurative.
Firstly, Heb. 1:1-2 is referring to God speaking in the flesh, which lasted for a specific amount of time, which isn’t the same as saying that God ceased speaking to humanity altogether. There is no sense of finality in this verse. Secondly, there’s actually seventy-two books, not sixty-six. Thirdly, Jesus said the following:
There are four Gospels. Now I am explaining them in order to bring to light others which are lost or downplayed. But I am not creating another Gospel. There are four, four there will remain. Understood in detail or left in their broad outlines, four and no more. (The Little Notebooks, October 17th, 1944)
Further: if you object that the revelation was closed with the last Apostle, and there was nothing further to add, because the same Apostle says in Revelation: “If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him every plague mentioned in the book” (22:18) and that can be understood for all the Revelation, the last completion of which is the Revelation by John, I reply to you that with this work no addition was made to revelation, but only the gaps, brought about by natural causes and by supernatural will, were filled in. (The Poem of the Man-God: Vol. V, April 28th, 1947)
Christ is the Word, as well as a living Being, and all of His thoughts and words aren’t limited to between the covers of any book, just as yours and mine aren’t.
You just tried to separate Christ from His own Word. That’s the core error. You said, “Christ is the Word, but His thoughts aren’t confined to any book,” as if the written Word is somehow beneath or beside Christ’s living presence. But that’s not how Jesus treated Scripture, ever.
John 12:48 says, “The word I have spoken will judge him on the last day.” That Word is recorded. And He didn’t leave us chasing after mystical vibes or private revelations, He said, “Sanctify them in the truth; Your Word is truth” (John 17:17). Not “your feelings.” Not visions. The Word.
2 Timothy 3:16–17 shuts the case: “All Scripture is God-breathed… so the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” Complete. Not half-ready. Not still in need of whispers or “further light.”
So when you suggest Christ’s voice speaks “beyond the Bible,” you’re cracking the door open to every subjective wind of doctrine, exactly what Ephesians 4:14 warns against.
Yes, Jesus is a living Person, but He reveals Himself through the written Word, not apart from it. Hebrews 1:1–2 says God used to speak in many ways, but now has spoken finally and fully in His Son. And how do we know the Son? From Scripture, not séance.
The moment you unchain Christ from Scripture, you no longer follow the Christ of the cross, but a Christ of your own construction. He becomes a wax figure molded by your imagination rather than the crucified Lord testified to in the inspired Word.
So no, Christ is not giving you extra-biblical revelations about purgatory, sanctification, or anything else. If it’s not in the Word, it’s not from the Lord. The Spirit of Christ wrote the Scriptures (2 Pet. 1:21), and He does not stutter or contradict Himself.
J.
Soul, you’ve put a lot on the table, so let’s walk through it without side-stepping the tension. You quote me, push back hard, and I welcome it. Iron sharpens iron. But let’s not polish iron into something soft just because it makes for smoother reading.
First, on Isaiah 53:2. You say it doesn’t touch on physical appearance, only on how He was perceived. But that’s a false separation. The text says He had “no form or majesty that we should look at Him, and no beauty that we should desire Him.” That is perception based on appearance. It’s not about inner character or spiritual charisma. It’s about how He looked to those who saw Him. The Gospels’ silence on Jesus’ features is not a contradiction—it’s the very fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy. They didn’t record what no one found remarkable. That’s precisely the point. He didn’t draw followers with aesthetic magnetism, but with authority, truth, and ultimately a cross.
You challenge my appeal to Revelation as ironic, since it uses symbolic imagery. Correct. It’s figurative. But it’s Spirit-given figurative. There’s a world of difference between apostolic visions in the canon of Scripture and poetic reconstructions from private visionaries centuries later. Revelation shows us the risen, glorified Christ in terms meant to inspire worship and awe. That’s not “the same category” as Valtorta describing the color of His beard curl tips.
Then you point to the seventy-two books of the Catholic canon as a rebuttal to my mention of sixty-six. Fair point, from a Catholic framework. I was speaking from the Protestant canon, which recognizes sixty-six. But either way, neither tradition opens the door to adding “explanations” of the Gospels dictated in the twentieth century and labeling them words of Jesus. That’s where the break happens. Once you say, “Jesus said this in 1944,” you are placing those words under the same weight as what He said in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. That is no small claim. And yes, it gets tested accordingly.
You quote Valtorta claiming Jesus said, “Now I am explaining them.” But Scripture itself warns about adding to what has already been delivered. Not just in Revelation 22:18, but in Jude 3, which tells us “the faith was once for all delivered to the saints.” Not once for now, with more to follow.
Christ is indeed a living Being, and He speaks still. But He does so by His Spirit through His Word. Not by bypassing the canon with new dictated material. That’s not limiting Him. That’s honoring how He chose to reveal Himself. Hebrews 1 says God has spoken by His Son. It does not say “is continuing to speak” through private dictations. The apostolic witness is the foundation. Ephesians 2:20 says the Church is built on it. Not supplemented by mystics centuries later.
You’re right to long for more of Jesus. We all should. But let’s not trade the blazing clarity of what He has said for the soft glow of what others claim He’s still saying.
Christ doesn’t need editors. He needs heralds.
Sincere Seeker. Still holding the line. Still here for the Truth.
I stated the fact Christ is the Word and a living Being, and that all of the thoughts and words of living beings—His, mine and others—aren’t confined between the covers of any book. That isn’t saying Scripture isn’t canon, or insufficient for bringing people to belief and salvation. But one shouldn’t deny God what He allows other living beings to have, and what we don’t deny others of having: the freedom to act. For example, most Christians rightfully acknowledge that Satan is a living being who is active in speech and appearance to this day…except God. Jesus wouldn’t have taught how to discern between true and false spokespersons, if God was going to become a recluse after He ascended back to Heaven.
The technicality that I actually said Is. 53:2 doesn’t touch on Jesus’s physical appearance not appearance is significant because the former specifically refers to the outward aspect of a person’s body, whereas the latter is a broader term which encompasses the way something looks or seems.
You’re arguing, in part, that physical appearance is “exactly what it [Is. 53:2] touches on”, and that “it says plainly and prophetically: ‘He had no form or majesty that we should look at Him, and no beauty that we should desire Him.’ That’s a statement about visible appeal. Surface-level. The way people saw Him with their eyes—and dismissed Him. Period”, because “the Gospels, inspired by the Holy Spirit, are silent on what Jesus looked like”. Just using my God-given reason, I know that Isaiah couldn’t have been prophesying, in part, that Christ would be ugly for a few reasons: (I) saying someone will be rejected for being ugly doesn’t serve a meaningful purpose temporally or spiritually as a prophecy, (II) a lack of mention regarding physical appearance shouldn’t be taken as meaning the person being spoken about is automatically “ugly”, and (III) if a prophet was saying that Christ will be ugly, then God was ultimately saying that, and if God and a prophet could say it, then surely one of His many disciples, especially of the women, would’ve said something about Him being ugly and partially rejected and killed over it, but they didn’t…
Jesus explained Is. 53:2 thus: “To those who know Me not, there is in Me nothing to appeal to them, or to attract them. To those who know Me there is nothing more to be desired.” (God Calling)
Both the apostle John and Maria Valtorta have seen what Jesus looks like. And, Jesus was not only God but a human, and humans have physical features and mannerisms, and the topic of this thread is about those details. John’s description of Jesus in Rev. 1:14-16 doesn’t help here because he used figurative language, but Maria Valtorta’s does because she used literal language.
Continuation of my responses in the next post…
Firstly, I never said that Maria Valtorta’s books were canonical, because they’re not, but they remain inspired books.
Secondly, the Christian (Catholic) Church headquartered in Rome was led by the Holy Spirit to compile and declare the Canon.
The Synod of Rome (382) is where the Canon was first formally identified—all seventy-three (not sixty-six) books.
11 years after that, it was confirmed at the Synod of Hippo (393) .
4 years later, at the Council (or Synod) of Carthage (397), it was yet again confirmed. The bishops wrote at the end of their document, “But let Church beyond sea (Rome) be consulted about confirming this Canon”. There were 44 bishops, including St. Augustine who signed the document.
7 years later, in 405, in a letter from Pope Innocent I to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse, he reiterated the Canon.
14 years after that, at the 2nd Council (Synod) of Carthage (419) the Canon was again formally confirmed.
The Canon of Scripture was officially closed at the Council of Trent in the 16th century because of the perversions happening within Protestantism and the random editing and deleting of books from the Canon.
So, by all means, test Maria Valtorta’s writings, but if you’re going to do so accordingly, then you should use all of the Canon, not some of it, and hopefully without error in your interpretation of both.
Heb. 1:1-2 is referring to God speaking in the flesh, during the period of time that He was on the earth, which isn’t the same as saying that God ceased speaking to humanity altogether. There is no sense of finality in this verse.
If you truly believe that God is a living Being, then you wouldn’t deny Him what He allows other living beings to have, and what we don’t deny others of having: the freedom to act. What’s foreign to me is seeing Christians assert that Satan is a living being who is active in speech and appearance to this day, except God… Jesus wouldn’t have taught how to discern between true and false spokespersons, if God was going to become a recluse, and Satan was going to cool off in Hell, after He ascended back to Heaven.
I think the disconnect is that you think when I say that God continues to speak that I mean He continues to add to Scripture and I’m not. I’m saying there’s Scripture God is the author of and there’s God. Scripture isn’t a complete knowledge source, but what it consists of is sufficient for bringing people to belief and salvation. Living beings like God and humans have free will, feelings, thoughts, reason, intelligence, and the ability to speak. If God started speaking to you—and He might at any time—about current events going on in the world, or your own personal life, or subjects or events not mentioned in Scripture, or explains scriptural verses because of the countless differing interpretations of them that exist, omitted words in translation, the gaps, etc., would you listen to Him? Would you share what He had to say? You’d be right to answer “yes”, and it wouldn’t mean that Scripture is insufficient for its intended purpose, less important, or unimportant.
Soul, you’ve clearly put a lot of thought, effort, and theological study into your replies. I see that, and I respect your passion for guarding what you believe is sacred. But with equal conviction, I’m going to press where I see the lines of biblical authority being blurred.
Let’s start with the Isaiah 53:2 thread. You’re trying to draw a tight distinction between “appearance” and “physical appearance” as if the verse is about perception divorced from the body. But that’s linguistic gymnastics. The Hebrew behind “form” and “beauty” directly relates to physical form and outward appeal. Isaiah isn’t just talking about how people felt about Jesus—he’s describing why they dismissed Him. Because there was nothing visually striking or majestic about Him. Not glowing. Not handsome. Not stunning. Just… ordinary. That’s not theological cruelty. That’s prophetic humility. The Servant came lowly. He didn’t win hearts with presence but pierced them with truth.
Now, to the Gospels’ silence. You argue that if Jesus was unattractive, someone would’ve said it. But that assumes a cultural habit of insulting appearances as part of Gospel narrative. They didn’t describe Peter’s eye color either, or Mary’s height. Why? Because none of it mattered. What mattered was the cross, the blood, and the empty tomb. The Gospel writers weren’t interested in portraiture. They were proclaiming a kingdom.
You also appeal to “God Calling” to reinterpret Isaiah 53. That’s your call. But it’s a private text, not a prophetic standard. Scripture interprets Scripture. And nothing in the apostolic witness corrects Isaiah’s plain meaning.
On Revelation and Valtorta: you say John’s vision is figurative and Valtorta’s is literal. But being literal doesn’t mean being authoritative. The danger isn’t just in fiction. It’s in unverified “fact” being presented as truth. John’s vision was given in the Spirit, recorded in Scripture, and confirmed by the Church. Valtorta’s is private, post-apostolic, and never given the weight of dogma. The difference is not just literary style. It’s authority.
You then say I confused canon with inspiration. No—I said Valtorta’s writings are not Scripture. You say they’re inspired. That’s the issue. “Inspired” means God-breathed. That is a heavy claim. Scripture is inspired. Other works can be helpful, moving, or edifying, but not inspired in the same category. And if a voice claims to be Jesus explaining the Gospels, that’s not devotional poetry. That’s doctrinal territory. And that gets tested by the highest standard—the closed canon.
Now, to the canon itself. Yes, Rome affirmed the canon formally in the 4th and 5th centuries. But it didn’t invent the canon. The Church recognized what the Spirit had already inspired. And Trent, which you mention, was a response to the Reformation—not the origin of authority. The apostles didn’t pass the pen to mystics. They passed it to the Church. And the Church closed the door on further revelation the moment the apostolic foundation was laid.
You suggest I’m denying that God speaks today. Not at all. I believe He speaks—through His Word, by His Spirit, in His people, in providence, and in conscience. But not in new Scripture. Not in new doctrine. Not in dictated chapters of commentary allegedly from Jesus Himself. If God is truly speaking, He won’t contradict what He’s already spoken. And when someone says, “Jesus is giving new explanations,” we better be ready to hold that up to the highest light. That’s not skepticism. That’s obedience.
You say I believe Satan still speaks but not Jesus. That’s not just a straw man—it’s a misunderstanding. God speaks, yes. But He doesn’t need to repeat the Gospel in new words when He already said, “It is finished.”
The Scriptures are not silent. They are sufficient. Not silent about who Christ is. Not silent about what He looks like in glory. Not silent about what He came to do. And not lacking anything that needs to be “filled in.”
If we need help seeing Christ, we don’t need a new vision. We need clearer eyes and deeper faith in the revelation already given.
Sincere Seeker. Scripturally savage. Here for the Truth.
P.S. The site frowns upon multiple posts… just thought I’d pass on the reminder… I’d hate to see your hard work on a post get removed for failing to abide by the Terms of Service.
The term physical appearance specifically refers to the outward aspect of a person’s body, and appearance is a broader term which encompasses the way something looks or seems. That’s not mental gymnastics but a fact. Your argument is that Jesus was prophesied, in part, to be physically ugly, and the lack of mention of His physical appearance in the Gospels was the fulfillment of that prophecy. I explained why that’s problematic, so now you’re arguing that the lack of mention is because it didn’t matter. If Jesus was prophesied to be ugly, but what He looked like didn’t matter, then a prophet, and ultimately God, wouldn’t have said He would be ugly to begin with. Jesus explained Is. 53:2 thus: “To those who know Me not, there is in Me nothing to appeal to them, or to attract them. To those who know Me there is nothing more to be desired.” (God Calling)
Jesus was not only God but a human, and humans have physical features and mannerisms. We don’t have any writings by the Evangelists, at least that can be found in Scripture, describing Jesus’s physical appearance using literal language. However, I was able to provide those details by Maria Valtorta who has witnessed what Jesus looks like, and I have the proof in support of Her having actually seen Him. If you were to receive a vision of Jesus when He was on earth, or if He appeared to you—and either of these scenarios could happen at any time—and you described in writing what He looks like, and there was proof that you saw Him, should it be rejected just because your writings aren’t canonical?
Now, we agree that God Calling, The Poem of the Man-God, and others aren’t canonical, but they remain as inspired books. It is proper to specify that the inspired writer “has God as the author”. God, Who reveals or illuminates mysteries or truths, as He pleases, for these instruments of His, ‘spurring and moving them with supernatural virtues, assisting them in writing in such fashion that they rightly conceive with their intelligence and faithfully seek to write and, with suitable means and infallible truth, express all of the things, and only those things, which are commanded by Him, God.’ It is God Who, with a threefold action, illuminates the intellect so that it will know the truth without error, by either revelation—in the case of still unknown truths—or exact recollection, if they are truths already established, but still rather incomprehensible for human reason; it moves so that what the inspired one comes to know supernaturally will be written faithfully; it assists and directs so that the truths will be stated in the form and number which God wills, with veracity and clarity, so that they will be known to others for the good of many, with the very words of God in the direct teachings or with the words of those inspired when they describe visions or repeat supernatural lessons.
Regarding the Canon itself, I didn’t say that “Rome invented the Canon”, but rather the Christian (Catholic) Church headquartered in Rome was led by the Holy Spirit to compile and declare the Canon. The Synod of Rome (382) is where the Canon was first formally identified—all seventy-three books. Protestants edited and deleted books from the Canon (which is why you have sixty-six not seventy-three), hence the Council of Trent in the 16th century. So, by all means, test Maria Valtorta’s writings, but if you’re going to do so accordingly, then you should use all of the Canon, not some of it, and hopefully without error in your interpretation of both.
You don’t deny God, a living Being, the freedom to act and speak to this day you say? So, you don’t deny that God could start speaking to you about current events going on in the world, or your own personal life, His life when on earth, or what have you? And, if He does in the future, would you listen to Him and share what He had to say?
If you really would hate to see that, then I recommend that you try and see that the character limit is increased, if not removed entirely, so that members can respond to another’s post in one post.
Soul, thanks for the clarification. You’ve laid out your case carefully, and I’ll return in kind—sharp, but respectful.
Let’s start where the friction is thickest: Isaiah 53:2. You insist that I’ve claimed Jesus was prophesied to be “ugly.” I never said that. What I said—and what Isaiah says—is that He had “no form or majesty that we should look at Him, and no beauty that we should desire Him.” That’s not the same as “ugly.” That’s saying He didn’t have striking features that drew people in. He wasn’t impressive by worldly standards. He was ordinary. Undistinguished. That’s the scandal. The Messiah came not in power or pageantry, but in plainness. And the rejection He faced—mocked, beaten, dismissed—was not just because of His message, but because He didn’t look the part of a king.
The verse speaks directly to perception rooted in appearance. You draw a line between “appearance” and “physical appearance,” but Isaiah is clearly referencing what people saw and what they didn’t admire. The Gospels’ silence fits that context perfectly. His face wasn’t what drew people to Him—His words were.
Now, about your claim that Jesus later explained Isaiah 53 in “God Calling.” I know you hold that book dear, but quoting it to reinterpret Scripture is like trying to adjust a compass with a magnet—it only leads further off-course. No matter how moving the words, no matter how sweet the tone, if it’s not Scripture, it doesn’t get to rewrite prophecy. Only the Spirit-inspired Word interprets itself.
You then say Maria Valtorta “saw” Jesus and therefore her descriptions are valid, even if not canonical. But here’s the issue: authority. Not sincerity. Not beauty. Not even consistency. Authority. You ask if I saw Jesus and described Him, would I want that rejected? If it claimed divine authorship, yes. Because my words, your words, or Valtorta’s words are not the Word of God. That’s not because we’re unspiritual. It’s because we’re not apostles. The canon is closed. That’s what protects us from error, delusion, and well-meaning detours dressed as devotion.
Calling a book “inspired” is not just a compliment. It’s a claim of divine origin. And you say it yourself: that these writings are authored by God through supernatural illumination, infallible truth, and suitable means. That’s not a soft endorsement. That’s a theological earthquake. Because if it’s authored by God, it belongs in Scripture. If it’s not Scripture, it’s not infallible. And if it’s not infallible, it cannot claim divine origin. That’s not me drawing a line. That’s God’s own standard in Deuteronomy 18, Jeremiah 23, Galatians 1, and Revelation 22.
As for the canon, I understand your view. Yes, the Catholic Church affirmed seventy-three books. Yes, Protestants hold to sixty-six. But I’m not ignoring part of the Bible—I’m saying the authority of Scripture rests in what the Holy Spirit inspired through the apostles and prophets, not through later visions that try to append commentary to the Gospel like footnotes from heaven.
And no, I don’t deny that God is alive, active, and able to speak. But when God speaks today, He does not contradict what He’s already spoken. He doesn’t need to revise the Gospels. He doesn’t need to add new descriptive layers to Jesus’s face or tone of voice. The Spirit illuminates what’s already revealed. He doesn’t reissue bonus content.
You ask: If God spoke to me, would I share it? If it were truly God, and confirmed through His Word and His Church, I’d tremble before I typed a syllable. But I wouldn’t call it Scripture. I wouldn’t claim others must receive it as gospel. And I certainly wouldn’t frame it as “Jesus explaining the Gospels” in a way that puts it side by side with Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
Let’s not forget what’s at stake. Paul warned that even if an angel from heaven preached another gospel, he was to be accursed. When you start assigning divine authorship to non-canonical revelations, you don’t just flirt with that line—you risk crossing it.
So yes, test everything. But test it with the Word. Not with sentiment. Not with aesthetics. Not with popular devotion. With Scripture. Alone.
Sincere Seeker. Still holding the line. Still here for the Truth.
I’m pointing out the distinction between physical appearance and appearance.
This term focuses on the concrete, observable characteristics that make up a person’s or object’s outward look. For example, when describing someone’s physical appearance, you might talk about their height, build, facial features, skin tone, or the way they dress.
This is a more general term that encompasses how something looks or seems to be. It can include physical attributes but also extends to other aspects like the way something is arranged or presented. For instance, a room can have a “messy appearance” due to scattered items, even though the room’s physical structure remains the same.
In essence: Physical appearance is a subset of appearance, focusing on the tangible, visual aspects. Appearance is a broader concept that includes how something looks, seems, or presents itself to the viewer.
There’s more than one way to say something, and based on what you said, you argued that Isaiah prophesied, in part, that Christ would be physically ugly, and I gave multiple reasons why that couldn’t have been the case.
In God Calling, Jesus didn’t “rewrite” Is. 53:2, but rather explained it.
I actually said Maria Valtorta had witnessed Jesus’s physical features/mannerisms and described Him, and that I can present proof in support of her having actually seen Him. If, like her, you were to claim to have received a vision of Jesus when He was on earth, or that He appeared to you—and either of these scenarios could happen at any time—and describe His physical features and mannerisms in your own words, while your words wouldn’t be found in Scripture, and thus would be uncanonical, that wouldn’t invalidate your experience and testimony if it really happened.
You’re correct in saying that inspired books have a divine origin. You’re incorrect in saying “if it’s authored by God it belongs in Scripture”, because, for example, the apostle John mentioned that not everything Jesus did was written (Jn. 2:25). And, if God reveals those previously unknown details—and He could—by using you as His “pen” (which means writing down His words, not your own), that would make you an inspired writer, and your writings uncanonical, but still inspired, because God is the Author. That would go for anything He said and instructed you to write.
Ah ah ah, the Christian (Catholic) Church headquarted in Rome not only formally confirmed the Canon multiple times, but before that was led by the Holy Spirit to compile and declare the Canon. The Synod of Rome (382) is where the Canon was first formally identified—all seventy-three books. The Canon of Scripture was officially closed at the Council of Trent in the 16th century because of the perversions happening within Protestantism and the random editing and deleting of books from the Canon. You’re a protestant who rejects seven of the seventy-three canonical books that were compiled, declared, and confrmed to be so by the Christian (Catholic) Church, led by the Holy Spirit, and founded by Jesus on the apostles! So, you’re not only ignoring but also rejecting part of Scripture.
Are you going to start using all seventy-three canonical books then, instead of only sixty-six of them?
Soul, I appreciate the precision you’re bringing—but precision without submission to the Word is just dressed-up subjectivity. So let’s take these one at a time and let the truth speak for itself.
You’re defending the distinction between “appearance” and “physical appearance” as if Isaiah 53:2 is a matter of semantic fine-tuning. But here’s the rub: even if “appearance” is broader, the verse still communicates how Jesus looked to those who saw Him—and what they saw didn’t move them. That’s the plain sense. Not allegory. Not metaphor. Not mysticism. “No form or majesty… no beauty that we should desire Him.” It speaks of what’s visible and rejected. That’s physical enough for the Spirit who inspired Isaiah, and it’s exegetically consistent with the Gospels’ silence on His features. The prophetic weight falls on what people saw and didn’t value—not what they misperceived spiritually.
You say Jesus “explained” Isaiah 53:2 in God Calling, not rewrote it. But He didn’t explain it there. Someone else did, writing under the claim that it was Jesus. And you’ve staked a lot on that claim. But when the explanation contradicts the plain meaning of the original text, it doesn’t clarify—it reinterprets. And no private revelation, however moving, gets to play editor with prophecy.
Now onto Maria Valtorta. You say she witnessed Jesus and described Him, and that I should treat those details as valid if the vision can be “proven.” But proven how? There’s no biblical test that says “if it feels right and agrees with your theology, it’s proof.” The standard is higher. If someone says, “Jesus said this,” it’s immediately in the same category as, “Thus saith the Lord.” And that means it must be judged with the fire of Deuteronomy 13, 18, Galatians 1, and Revelation 22. If God is the author, the stakes are eternal. If He’s not, the claim is spiritual fraud.
You say inspired writings don’t have to be canonical. That sounds safe, but it’s slippery. If God authors something, that’s Scripture by nature—even if it’s not in the canon. You can’t have divine authorship without divine authority. And if it has divine authority, it’s binding for the Church. But the Church has already said the canon is closed. That’s why we don’t add John’s lost notes or the diary of every mystic who claims heavenly dictation.
As for John 2:25, you’re right—Jesus did more than we’re told. But knowing He did more doesn’t mean God is still handing out divine transcripts. The apostles wrote what the Spirit intended for the Church. That’s sufficiency, not censorship.
On the canon itself: yes, the Catholic Church affirms seventy-three books. Protestants affirm sixty-six. And no, I’m not rejecting part of Scripture. I’m standing where the earliest churches stood when they tested books for apostolic origin, doctrinal consistency, and prophetic confirmation. The issue isn’t who voted first. It’s what God inspired. And inspiration is not dictated by councils—it’s recognized by the Spirit among the faithful, consistent with the apostolic witness. That’s what gives the Word its weight—not institutional rubber stamps.
You challenge me to accept all seventy-three books. But here’s the real challenge: are we letting the canon read us, or are we reading into it based on the authority of visions and traditions that came centuries later?
I test everything with the Word. Yes, the whole counsel of God. But not with extra voices claiming divine authorship long after the apostolic age closed. God has spoken fully in His Son—and His Spirit preserved every word we need in Scripture. That’s not narrow. That’s faithful.
So let’s not confuse what moves us emotionally with what binds us doctrinally. The real Jesus doesn’t need cosmetic enhancement or mystical supplements. He needs to be believed as He is revealed.
Sincere Seeker. Still standing. Still submitted. Still here for the Truth.
The only thing I’m confident about is that Jesus was (and is) a brown-skinned Jewish man from Galilee, and therefore looked like what other brown-skinned Jewish men from Galilee and Palestine would have looked like. It is true that people form the Middle East can have diverse skin tones, from fairer to darker; but I mean, c’mon, He was raised in the blue-collar home of St. Joseph, worked as a craftsman/carpenter under Joseph’s tutelage, and then walked from place to place under the hot Judean sun. He was going to have dark skin. So I’m perfectly confident in saying the Lord had brown skin.
Firstly, you were the one who essentially said that “physical appearance” and “appearance” were the same, which is why I showed you that there’s a distinction between the two. Secondly, you were the one who argued that Isaiah prophesied, in part, that Christ would be physically ugly, and I gave multiple reasons why that couldn’t have been the case.
Whether you believe it was Jesus or someone else explaining Is. 53:2 in God Calling, or you believe that explanation is right or wrong, explaining something isn’t the same as rewriting it.
I actually said that Maria Valtorta had witnessed Jesus’s physical features/mannerisms and described Him, and that I can present proof in support of her having actually seen Him. If, like her, you were to claim to have received a vision of Jesus when He was on earth, or that He appeared to you—and either of these scenarios could happen at any time—and describe His physical features and mannerisms in your own words, while your words wouldn’t be found in Scripture, and thus would be uncanonical, that wouldn’t invalidate your experience and testimony if it really happened. Do you disagree?
If God authors something, it’s not Scripture by nature because Scripture in Christianity specifically refers to the Old and New Testament writings. Nor is everything authored by God going to be found in Scripture because, for example, the apostle John mentioned that not everything Jesus did was written (Jn. 2:25). So, if God reveals those previously unknown details—and He could—by using you as His “pen” (which means writing down His words, not your own), that would make you an inspired writer, and your writings uncanonical, but still inspired, because God is the Author. That would go for anything He said and instructed you to write.
As Jesus has said, Scripture is sufficient for bringing people to belief and salvation. We don’t disagree on this point.
Ah ah ah, the Christian (Catholic) Church headquarted in Rome not only formally confirmed the Canon multiple times , but before that was led by the Holy Spirit to compile and declare the Canon. The Synod of Rome (382) is where the Canon was first formally identified—all seventy-three books.
Take a glance over at your copy of The Bible right now. The reason you even have that, is because of the Holy Spirit having led Jesus’s Church, the Christian (Catholic) Church, in the compiling, declaring, confirming, and closing of the Canon—all seventy-three books. That is a historical fact.
You speak of the Canon, apostolic origin, Christian doctrine, but you refuse to be a member of Jesus’s Christian (Catholic) Church that He founded on the apostles, and reject seven of the seventy-three canonical books compiled, declared, and confirmed by that Church! Why would the Holy Spirit lead the Christian (Catholic) Church into compiling, declaring, and confirming multiple times the seventy-three canonical books just to lead non-members of that Church into removing and rejecting seven of them??
Based on the reasons given, why would you not accept all seventy-three canonical books?
You test with sixty-six out the seventy-three canonical books.
Very true…the one to which I belong, The Orthodox (76 books), we have 1 maccabeees, 2 maccabees, Judith, Psalms 151 etc which the Protestant bibles don’t have, what to say.
This discussion is telling me to look into these removed books, so interesting.