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.